Just the one.

It’s a truck, meant to tow and haul loads. If this is its range unladen then it’s hauling range is 50% or less of this range. Meaning a full charge gets you 82-103 miles, which makes it nearly useless as the thing it’s supposed to be: a truck.

i had a hitch on my 96 metro. so, yeah. and a geo metro totin a tiny trailer looks a hell of a lot less silly than that silver monstrosity

i do see your point. but i think it misses main the issue here; that this isnt a good vehicle let a lone truck.

Or never if it gets to cold for a while.

The early 90s was mostly a perfect storm for fuel economy.

You had the computing power available to make use of CAD and develop more aerodynamic designs with less significant overhead (i.e., doing it by hand).

EFI technology had matured and carburetors were broadly defunct, allowing more efficient operation in a broader range of environments.

The US had updated its archaic lighting regulations to allow for more aerodynamic headlight shapes.

A lot of the safety technology that adds weight to modern cars either hadn’t been developed yet or hadn’t trickled down to the average vehicle.

So you had a confluence of more efficient engines, more aerodynamic vehicles, and cars that were still small and relatively lightweight.

well, i actually had both a '92 3ycl (suzuki engine) and then later had a 4cyl monster metro. i think that was like a 96?

just dont turn on the ac

deleted by creator

I regularly get 43-46mpg highway with my 4 cylinder TLX, drops off like crazy atoms town though.

I agree that economy peaked In the 80’s-early 90’s, but if you take into account how much bigger, and heavier cars are today, we’re not that bad. Also, a lot of weight and size goes towards the superior crash safety in modern cars.