Reply #86: They might have been doing Big Oil a favor...

[krispos42]

but they were doing themselves one, too. The cars of the day were large and heavy, and wussy, low-powered cars were not a selling point, either in advertising or by word-of-mouth.

It's not that they necessarily wanted to pay more to operate the car, but the cost of the gas was seen as negligable, and they were unwilling to give up performance. Cars are expensive decisions that you must live with for many years after purchase. You don't want to get on that you're going to dislike because it's too big or too small or looks funny or is underpowered or give the wrong 'vibe'.

The oil crises in the '70s really brought efficiency to the forefront, and new engine technologies and such. Nowadays, while the average fuel economy of the American fleet has pretty much stayed the same, the average horsepower has gone up considerably. For example, in comparing the 1988 Ford Taurus to the similar-sized 2006 Ford Fusion, both with the base engine, the Fusion gets both 20 more horsepower and 2 more highway miles per gallon, according to the EPA numbers.

However, you could get the same EPA milage in a Ford Fusion with the optional V-6 as you can with the Taurus with the base engine, except the Ford Fusion will have some 81 more horsepower (58%) than the Taurus. So you can see we're getting much better in this catagory.

People were comfortable with the mileage they were getting, overall, so the competition by the automakers was to increase horsepower without lowering the gas milage. And that is where we are at now. Your basic family sedan's gas milage really hasn't gone up that much, but the power really has, resulting in happy customers.