Also, I mis-wrote when I said driving conditions. I meant more the functions of today's cars. Today we've got radios, air conditioning, GPS, etc. The cars are running computers in them to control ABS systems and stuff like that. All of these extra systems means more juice gets sucked from the battery. More juice from the battery means more power generated by the alternator. More power generated means worse gas mileage.

I might be a little confused by what you mean by average gas mileage. There is the difference between trucks and cars as well as the difference between highway and city mileage. Companies that sell trucks will obviously have a lower mpg rating than a company that doesn't. This doesn't mean that they don't have other more fuel efficient options and makes them look bad compared to a company that doesn't offer trucks.

Also, companies such as GM are introducing Hybrid pickups and SUVs (although they're having a rough go of it being essentially bankrupt).

To me it just seems like people want to blame the auto companies for offering vehicles that consume more fuel because people are buying them. If no one bought them, they wouldn't sell and this wouldn't be an issue.

Also, there are currently plenty of vehicles that get better than 27.5 mpg. The consumers need to buy vehicles with the environment in mind.

Quit putting it on the automakers and the companies. It's our fault for how we live and the choices we make.

Any differences in speeds and driving conditions would seem to benefit today's cars. Driving conditions were bad roads back then; now we have nice, paved, mainly straight roads. And driving speeds tend to be worse for low speeds (such as below 30mpg).

I do agree that it's partially the consumers' fault, but the auto companies also share blame. They have dragged their feet on setting and achieving fuel efficiency goals for too long, and now you see foreign car companies cashing in on the market for more fuel-efficient cars. The car companies need to really push higher mpg goals.