1959 Saab

Interesting question. I thought 2-strokes had inherent problems in terms of efficiency, certainly this was true of crankcase compression motocycle engines. I believe the attendant problem of dirty exhaust output led to the resurgence of 4-stroke motorcycles since the '80s. I'm not familiar with the SAAB system but guess it would be like the Wartburg? The SAAB did have a very creditable drag coefficient, I'm sure.

This is a 1971 Honda 600. It had a 2 cylinder, air cooled, 4 stroke motorcycle engine.

I bought one of these used in 1975 for $200. I usually got more than 50 mpg, even though it was rated at about 33 mpg. My impression was that Honda had no business making cars. It rotted out quickly and rattled itself to pieces.

They could probably make a modern version of this, ( with emissions and crash tested ),that doesn't shake and rot away. However, I won't buy one. They got the mileage by making it light. No ps, no pb, very simple. The only factory option was an am radio.

It was marketed here as a ZOT!

Appropriate that it rhymes with your experience. The local larrikins foung another word with which it also rhymed. That word began with sn. That's what it was, rather unjustly colloquially, known as. I knew folks who loved theirs. It operated as a motorcycle which kept the rain off and the wind at bay. In the land of low speed limits who the hell needs one which does 200mph?

Look carefully. The next wave of personal transport will emulate this little beast, although someone will make them more difficult to get in and out of.

Cheers,

Stu

2 cycle engines cannot meet air quality emmisions and they have a lower efficency than a 4 stroke engine. You got "50 mpg" because the .84 liter engine had low end torque (chip tires), but no horsepower (38 to be exact), it could suck in enough air to burn that much fuel manufactures rated at 26 mpg (50 is probablly and exageration).

Top it off with a 1995 pounds and a max speed of 75 mph on a track.....

50 km/gallon = 31 miles/gallon on hiway, mystery solved on that one.

I used to routinely drive from Pittsburgh PA to Chicag, IL on 1 tank (10 US gallons) of regular fuel. That is about 500 miles or ~ 50 miles/ gallon of fuel.

Leave him alone. He said that he got 50mpg. Believe him.

Plenty of other cars could get over 50mpg on that sort of trip, including diesel Ford Fiestas and Escorts. The old Fiesta I had 10 years ago would get more than 60mpg (imperial) on long trips, that is still over 50mpg (US). The figures are credible.

Don't forget that's on the Imp. Gall. 50mpUS-petrol-g is no bad feat.

Oh hell, I got 50 mpg and averaged at a little over 90 mph. I did this in a 1971 Mercury Capri with a 2.8L V6. Of course this was in the desert on the Ca/NV border. Of course I was falling off of the Rocky Mountains at the time...

I hope you meant Sierra Nevada mountains. Rockies are a little further east.

Yeah, there are quite a few vehicles of yesteryear that get much better MPG than their modern counterpart.

I have an '04 Saab 9-3 2.0T ARC 5 speed and it gets 35-36MPG (tank average) driving at around 75-80MPH. Of what I have seen, it seems to have the best balance of performance, efficiency, and payload on the market today.

I have heard of some very impressive numbers from diesel VW rabbits that used to be sold in the US.

I am very curious what the fuel consumption is for the best economy cars that are currently offered in Europe. To go with that, I would also like to know the approximate weight and engine type (gas or diesel or ?) since this helps put the information in perspective.

My friend had a datsun 1000. I think it was a 69. It was a 4 cyl. (I believe 1000 c.c. 4 stroke rear wheel with 4 speed, single barrel carb. We drove around in that for 2 years and we checked the mileage often and it routinely got 50 m.p.g. combined city/hiway. Thats imperial gallons and miles not kilometers which we had here in canada before a band of no minds calling themselves a goverment changed everything to metric. The odometer read in miles and gas pumps sold in gallons so it was easy to figure out. Notably it was hard to get it to get bad mileage but also hard to get it to go fast (max. 70 m.p.h.with a tail wind). It was very reliable and exceptionally agile as we off-roaded often. It was also very light. Everything was bare bones and no extras. Closing the doors sounded like dropping a pop can on the floor. We first scoffed when his Dad gave it to him but quickly found that it was a riot to drive. Very quick in tight spaces. When we got stuck in the snow, one guy could push it out. Bottom line is low horsepower and light weight = high mileage

I had a 3 cylinder 2 cycle Saab in 1972, that I am not sure of the actual year it was made. I traded my 1954 Pontiac Star Chief in for it, in Binghamton New York. I think the muffler fell off on the way to Rochester, NY. Later I lost a fight with my girlfriend over how to spend 85 cents we had. She wanted a loaf of bread, and I want some oil for the car. She out screamed me and the engine froze the next day. I don't remember what sort of milage it got, since it didn't work for us all that long.

Oh, man, Trans, I can relate to that.