What happened to fuel economy for the last 30+ years...

qbee is on the right track here. We build and drive less efficient cars because we can AFFORD to.
The US was on the way to becoming much more energy conscious in the seventies, following the first peak oil impact (US oil peaked). The Arabs weren't playing nice, and the real costs of oil-based energy skyrocketed. Then we got the glut of the eighties and nineties, when, mostly, oil got really cheap again. It was possible to re-sell the old model of bigger, heavier, and yes, safer, cars.
With the current peak in worldwide oil production that is only being tempered by the worldwide re/depression for the time being, we can expect oil prices to gradually ascend toward seventies levels (real cost.) And, before long, those relatively cheap numbers will seem far away.
I fully expect to be paying 10.00/gallon before the decade is out.
It might be higher, or rationed to the extent that you only get a few gallons per week.
Unobtainium, eventually. At least for us "little people."

 

That would be a RAV using the gen 3 Prius powertrain. All the power & utility any reasonable person needs & 45+ mpg. Come on Toyota, if you won't give us a hybrid van, at least give us a hybrid RAV!!

 

Don't forget, those old "fuel efficient" cars also had pretty high emissions.

Part of the FE cost in newer vehicles is more extensive emissions handling. I'm not a mechanic, and I can't explain exactly why, but I do know that, even in old cars, if you took off the muffler and carb converter, you could bump your MPG quite a bit.

I used to drive a VW Dasher diesel. Yes, I could get 55 - 65 MPG with it, doing no more than 50 mph with a tail wind - but, it was DIRTY!

I much prefer the easy 50 MPG I get now, with the super-low emissions, the safety features, the comfort level, and the quality of a Toyota.

 

When the emissions laws came out, I was thrilled at the prospect of improved mileage. The best way to reduce emissions is a proper fuel-air mixture. I didn't anticipate that they would not fix the carburetors but instead convert the engine compartment into a plumber's nightmare:

belts and other redundancies.

Bob Wilson

 

Remember how car engines are designed.

A car engine is a chemical reactor for the production of on-spec exhaust gas. Shaft-work is a byproduct.

 

What Happened?

Two People: Joan Claybrook and Clotaire Rapaille

Two Car Companies: Toyota and Honda (out did the US manufacturers at efficient cars)

One Union: The UAW (got more powerful than its benefit to society)

 

Hi European Posters:

The problem with the most efficienct diesel engines is that they produce MASSIVE amounts of NOx. They are efficient because they have the highest combustion temps, and lowest exhaust temps. At the high combustion temps NOx is formed.

When European Diesels are converted to US emissions regs, they become gutless and inefficient. So much so, there is a black market in computer chips to turn them illegally back into European Diesels, from American Diesels. And one can easily smell the difference when one is behind a new TDI that has been chipped.

 

I don't know how old you are but back in the 1960s there was a persistent brown haze over many cities in this country. At that time there were 74,431,800 registered passenger vehicles in the US. The air is much cleaner today with 250,844,644 registered passenger vehicles in the US as of 2006. Had we not insisted on cleaner running engines we would probably all be wearing gas masks.

 

And if they were serious about really attacking air pollution they would have taken on the junk cars that spew more pollution individually than a fleet of fairly modern cars, but they can't do that because those "poor" people vote early and often and no politician can be seen as the person who took away Fred Sanford's pickup truck.

 

I'm not attempting to claim they handled things perfectly by any means but back in the days before pollution requirements for cars they all spewed crap into the environment at an alarming rate.
Your premise is seriously flawed if you think more benefit would have been realized by removing 5 million clunkers than regulating 75 million 60s era cars. Those clunkers didn't last much longer in any case.

BTW I doubt if you look back over history that you will be able to find a lot of examples of poor people rigging elections.