I paid $250 for my metro last summer, but had to put some work into it. I probably put another $100 into junkyard parts to get it like it is now. My 95 park ave was around $600 and got 30mpg while being fully loaded.
Best tank= 81.23 mpg on july 1st 2008
SAVE SOME GAS, SAVE THE WORLD!
Back in 1965, my dad paid $235 for a '59 Anglia. We still have it even though we haven't driven it in years, and at 40 mpg, it's still the most fuel efficient car we've ever owned. I take that as sad commentary on the FE of the typical car of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. You'd think that with 40 years of advances, we ought to be able to blow away the FE of such an obsolete car. And perhaps you could argue that something like the Metro is a significant advance, but I wouldn't. It's just lots of little advances. The Anglia is to the Metro as a standard incandescent bulb is to a halogen. I'm looking for improvements in the fluorescent or LED league.
It was about $11K for a brand new '92 Corolla. I had it for 10 years and always got over 36 mpg/tank. That was before I discovered hypermiling. Now I'd probably be getting more like 45 - 50. Too bad the salty roads turned it into a coroda.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein
Which do I choose? The poll says "most FE vehicle", the thread says "most fuel efficient car". If 'vehicle': My sailboat uses less 'fuel' per unit of distance than my bicycle.
And are you considering fuel efficiency based on one best measurement of distance per unit of fuel, or on the lifetime (or duration of ownership) average of all distances divided over total fuel? I've had cars that could be wrung out to a better mpg than the best of my motorcycles, but the cars were seldom driven that way. Their average was lower than the motorcycle's.