Here's a more complete EPA list of the new 2005 vehicles....probably substract ~10% for real world numbers.

2005 Model Year Fuel Economy Leaders

MPG Rank Manufacturer/Model city/highway

1. Honda Insight (hybrid-electric, manual) 61/66

2. Toyota Prius (hybrid-electric) 60/51

3. Honda Insight (hybrid-electric, automatic) 57/56

4. Honda Civic Hybrid (automatic, lean burn) 48/47

5. Honda Civic Hybrid (automatic) 47/48

6. Honda Civic Hybrid (manual, lean burn) 46/51

7. Honda Civic Hybrid (manual) 45/51

8. Volkswagen New Beetle/Golf/Jetta (diesel, manual) 38/46

9. Volkswagen Jetta Wagon (diesel, manual) 36/47

10. Honda Civic (manual) 36/44

Highest Fuel Economy by Vehicle Class 2005 Model Year

MPG Class Model city/highway

Two Seater Honda Insight (manual) 61/66

Minicompact Car Mini Cooper (manual 5-speed) 28/36

Subcompact Car Volkswagen New Beetle Diesel (man.) 38/46

Compact Car Honda Civic Hybrid (automatic, "lean burn") 48/47

Midsize Car Toyota Prius (hybrid) 60/51

Large Car Chevrolet Malibu Maxx 22/30

Small Station Wagon Volkswagen Jetta Wagon Diesel (manual) 36/47

Midsize Station Wagon Passat Diesel Wagon 27/38

Sport Utility Vehicle Ford Escape HEV (2WD) 36/31

Minivan Honda Odyssey 20/28

Pickup Truck Ford Ranger Pickup 2WD 24/29 Mazda B2300 2WD

Cargo Van Chevrolet Astro 2WD (Cargo) 16/22 GMC Safari 2WD (Cargo) *

Passenger Van Chevrolet Astro 2WD (Passenger) 16/21 GMC Safari 2WD (Passenger)

Lowest Fuel Economy Models* 2005 Model Year

MPG Rank Manufacturer/Model city/highway

1. Dodge Ram Pickup 2WD (automatic) 9/12

2. Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago (manual) 9/13

3. Dodge Ram Pickup 2WD (manual) 9/15 Lamborghini L-140/141 Gallardo (automatic) "

4. Bentley Arnage, Arnage LWB 10/14

5. Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago (automatic) 10/15

6. Ferrari 360 Modena/Spider/Challenge (automatic) 10/16 Ferrari 575 M Maranello (manual) "

7. Ferrari 575 M Maranello (automatic-3mode) 10/17 Ferrari 612 Scaglietti (automatic) " Lamborghini L-140/141 Gallardo "

8. Ferrari 360 Modena/Spider/Challenge (manual) 11/16

9. Ferrari 612 Scaglietti (manual) 11/17

10. Bentley Continental GT (automatic) 11/18 Aston Martin DB9 Volante (automatic) "

*Trucks over 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating are exempt from federal fuel economy requirements.

Lowest Fuel Economy by Vehicle Class* 2005 Model Year

MPG Class Make/Model city/highway

Two Seater Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago 9/13

Minicompact Car Aston Martin DB9 Volante 11/18

Subcompact Car Maserati Coupe & Gransport 12/17

Compact Car Bentley Continental GT 11/18

Midsize Car Bentley Arnage 10/14

Large Car Bentley Arnage LWB 10/14

Small Station Wagon Audi S4 Avant (manual) 15/21

Midsize Station Wagon Mercedes E55 AMG Wagon 14/21

Sport Utility Vehicle Mercedes G55 AMG 12/14

Minivan Kia Sedona 16/22

Pickup Truck Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup 2WD 9/12

Cargo Van Chevrolet Astro AWD (Cargo) Conv 14/17
GMC Safari AWD (Cargo) Conv "
Ford E150 Econoline 2WD "

Passenger Van Ford E150 Club Wagon 13/17

VgKg - DH has #5 (Honda Hybrid automatic) and is getting 48-50 mpg w/lots of stop-and-go driving, so you may not need to deduct 10% from those figures. SIL has driven Prius for 2+ years, going to/fro office is up-over-down steep mountain each way; her records show mpg averages 68-74 in warm weather, 58 in below-freezing weather. How many of us drive anything even half as good?

Glad to here it Meldy! Hopefully those numbers will hold up in the long run. I saw on the newz recently where a fella in CA (who commutes 4 hours/day) is now sleeping at work 3 nights a week to save $$$. My wife's little Ford Festiva (circa 1992) still gets about 35 mpgs....now her big car friends don't joke about it anymore ;o).

Thanks for the post, Vg. I'm going to pass on my planned Lamborghini purchase as I don't want to spend a lot on gas.

92 Ford Fiesta? Take care of it! I drove an 89 Mazda for 16 years, 30 round town & 37 highway -- it passed all the clean air tests, too. Spent the past year trying to get cause of engine light-on fixed, then gradually accepted facts: a) at $100+ per hour, the mechanics really weren't in any hurry to do more than the obvious, b) they had more time than I did money, and c) mazda needed to live with a mechanically-inclined human. Amazingly, such a person was found who had DS much in need of wheels, so that has taken care of c). Have you really looked at new wheels recently??? Sheesh, I do miss the ol'mazda's trunk -- could put a 24" pot, a couple 50 lb bags of soil mix, several bags of cocoa mulch, a few shrubs that sorta jumped into my cart while passing through the nursery, and still have enough space to stop by the food club for a 6-month supply of paper goods - and I could close the trunk lid, no sweat.

Meldy, I still drive my 1988 Mazda 626 and get 33-35 mpg. No mechanical problems in 17 years - just gas, oil, and filters. It passes strict emission tests in Atlanta and even with the slightly lower horsepower, I keep up with traffic. Have been pondering buying a new car for over a year, but am scared at the poor fuel ratings. With gas prices rising weekly, I may have to slap a coat of paint on it and drive it another year. I may buy a small used pickup and use it for local work hauling firewood and stuff and drive the mazda till it seizes up. The mazda is sure worth more to me as a long haul gas saver than Blue Book allows on a sale or trade-in. Wonder, if these old efficient cars will see their values rise above Blue Book with the increase in gas and lack of new fuel efficient options? Am struggling now to decide what make pickup I can afford to operate if gas continues to climb.

KingTurtle - I doubt blue book will improve, the oldies are just too, too senior years regardless of superb quality. I've often wondered what happened to those engineers who designed those good ones? cuz by early 90's mpg was horrid (and the 'new' bods didn't look so good either). Last year, a couple non-hybrid compacts managed to claim to get to upper 20's mpg, and this year, again. My requirement was a)safety - high crashworthiness per national institute of safety [reflection of the metro-area I drive] and b) reasonable mpg [meaning I sure didn't want less than I had from ol'mazda]. And before anyone asks - DH pitched a fit at having "untried technology" aka hybrid-vehicles. I pitched right back but he can yell louder and longer... it makes me wanna gag, but eventually the time comes when one (me, anyhow) will do anything for peace in the family, so I gave in & brought small compact with the highest safety rating, claims 30/38 mpg but we shall see... it didn't get that on first fill-up, but might on next fill-up. And all those unwanted but non-option electronics... might last 5 years, but I don't look for much longer. We keep one full-size pickup (driven only when a PU is a have-to, for the load) which gets 22/25, and it seems to be well-enough designed to last for quite a few more years. Didn't I recently read somewhere that ??? is going to have a hybrid pickup with next year or two? okay, I had to check, link attached to one report.. aren't those mpgs nauseating? Looks like those 87-88-89 mazda engineers need to come out of retirement and show 'em how to design for efficiency.

Looks like they're concentrating development of the pickup hybrids in the fullsize class. Before my Mazda, I had a Ford Courier pickup, the pre-Ranger small PU (actually made by mazda I think), which I drove to death. It got decent mileage and with a 2.3L engine and manual 5-speed could actually haul and pull stuff. I'm not real thrilled with my pickings now - guess I'll have to choose between a Ranger or Tacoma. Wondering if I should think about a diesel - at least in a crisis, I could rig it to run on french-fry grease.

The Wall Street Journal is only available to paying subscribers, so here is a blurb from grist.com on new model SUV's. Wouldn't want lipstick coving up any of the horsepower.

"I Coulda Had a V-12
Automakers make SUV engines bigger, less efficient
Under heated criticism for making SUVs that are unsafe and grossly fuel-inefficient, American automakers are responding the way any responsible industry would: making their SUVs even less safe and less fuel-efficient. General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford are all cranking up horsepower in their SUV engines, in some cases to the point that behemoths like the Jeep Grand Cherokee will go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in under five seconds, rivaling most sports cars. Though concerns about high gas prices, dependence on foreign oil, and global warming -- did we miss any? -- have heightened awareness of fuel economy, 84 percent of large-SUV owners still rank horsepower as an important vehicle attribute, compared to 45 percent who say the same about pinko-commie fixations like fuel economy. Of course, with their high centers of gravity and propensity to roll over in crashes, SUVs "were never designed to be driven as sports cars," says David Champion of Consumer Reports. So watch out!

straight to the source: The Wall Street Journal, Michelle Higgins, 24 Mar 2005"