Well I am the one who wrote this and yes I know it's hard to believe that it gets that good of mileage, but do you know who made that 3.0? It was NOT AN AMERICAN COMPANY. It was Mitsubishi. So yes that's why it gets the good miles. I love my car and I don't know if I would as much if I could not go like 500 miles on a tank.
If that 3.0 V6 Mitsubishi isn't creating a huge smoke screen (big oil burner), then you have one of the few that doesn't.
I am back again. (The Person who wrote this) I agree with what the honda crazy guy is saying, but my car is really getting great mileage. Its not a big deal! My fathers 99' Rodeo is getting close to 40 mpg! That's a 3.2 DOHC. So If you think about it nothing really is incorrect about my statement. Its not like I am hauling like 6 people around in it. I only have me and my tools for the shop in there.
I think we can all agree that 42 miles per gallon is an overestimation, but overall the Plymouth will be far more economical than any new Honda, since it can be bought used for $1,000 or less. Also the 'award winning' technology of the newer Honda is not desirable as, like most innovations since the early 1990s, it just represents needless complexity and expense - more to break.
That said, the 3.0 liter v6 is problematic due to the transmission it came with - the 2.5 liter four cylinder is much better.
The Fit is an ugly car, compared to the standard plain look of the Acclaim. All Honda's are overpriced and way over-rated, and in my opinion, their styling leaves something to be desired.
It's true than an old, American made Acclaim can be had for almost nothing. Locally, I purchased a 1989 Acclaim turbo with 96K miles, power everything, room for five, and EVERYTHING working for $300! No turbo's available with ANY Honda ever, and you can't touch them for $300!
As a 2nd car, I have an 89 Acclaim LX with 70,000 original miles.
I get about 38mpg on the highway cruising at 70mph with the cruise on... no joke! I wish I could post pictures here, I could make a youtube video of me gassing up, driving, then gassing back up, diving my gallons into miles, and you'd see. The trip computer will say 40mpg average sometimes, but in real life, for me, its averages out to be 38mpg on the highway. In the city I get 20-25mpg (depends on traffic).
And yes, perhaps EVERY car manufacturer should look back and do a little sharpening of their pencils.. it is shameful what some new cars get for MPG.
When my friends/family ask "Why are you driving that old thing?" I tell them that it gets 38mpg on the highway, my 2002 Envoy gets 19mpg. "you do the math!" Is exactly what I tell them.
So whilst 42mpg is sorta far fetched and most likely the data fed from the trip computer, 38mpg is attainable. I have the 3.0L V6, since it has such low miles I've been using Mobil 1 full syn with a Mobil 1 oil filter. It also has the A604, changed it out and put ATF+4 back in. That is very important for the ultra drives!
Mileage is so much more than just the car's EPA rating.
Seriously, EPA ratings are estimates based on the car's specs.
Also, any car made within the past 20 years is an internationally made vehicle. Yeah, it might have been ASSEMBLED in the U.S., but the parts for that vehicle were shipped in from another country. Same goes for "foreign" cars. There are Toyota and Nissan assembly plants in America. All the engineers for those cars are in Japan. Parts are actually manufactured most likely in Taiwan, China, Canada, or Mexico. Those precious Fords and Chevy's you so love? Assembled here? You bet! Parts came from? Nowhere around here.
So quit complaining about how much better one car is because it's "foreign" or another car is so much better because it's "American". The engineers do the best with what they know of today's technology, and if one company uses it best, of course the car is going to be good. I'd just as soon have a Chevy Cobalt as soon as I'd have a Mitsubishi Eclipse. They're both good, and both have pros and cons.