I was thinking back to all the vehicles I used to own, and realized that the amount I drove them is pretty much directly proportional to each car's fuel economy; the worse mileage it got, the less I drove it. Check it out:
1986 Oldsmobile 88 (EPA 23 mpg) - driven 1,800km within 2 months (900km/mth)
1980 Chrysler Cordoba (EPA 18 mpg) - driven 10,000km within 6 months (1,667km/mth)
1989 Mazda 323 wagon (EPA 30 mpg) - driven 3,000km within 4 months (750km/mth)
1985 Pontiac Fiero (EPA 28 mpg) - driven 55,000km within 18 months (3056km/mth)
1997 Ford Escort wagon (EPA 29 mpg) - driven 38,000km within 12 months (3167km/mth)
1991 Ford T-Bird (EPA 20 mpg) - driven 20,000km within 12 months (1667km/mth)
1997 Geo Metro (EPA 44 mpg) - driven 37,000km within 8 months (4625km/mth)
*used old EPA ratings
The Cordoba and T-Bird were pretty bad on gas, so they were only driven around 1700km per month, but check out the Fiero, Escort, and Geo! The amount they were driven follows very closely to how good their FE was (exactly in that order too). The T-Bird probably got 1/3 the FE of the Geo, but I drive the Geo nearly 3X as much!
The Mazda and Oldsmobile had mechanical issues throughout their ownership, so they weren't permitted to leave the city. That's why they weren't driven much (mostly commuting and an occasional Sunday night cruise).
Maybe FE is counter intuitive? It seems the cheaper a vehicle is on fuel, the more I opt to drive it. *sigh* I remember my $25 per week allowance was enough to keep my tank in Oldsmobile full. Those were the days. Have other members noticed a trend like this too?