Consumer reports rated 2005 cars for efficiency based on mpg and cargo room, the winners are:

Minivans getting 18 mpg or more and having at least 55 cubic feet of cargo volume: 1. Toyota Sienna LE, 21 mpg, 70.5 cubic feet
2. Mazda MPV ES, 19 mpg, 56 cubic feet
3. Honda Odyssey EX (2004 model was the one tested), 18 mpg, 67 cubic feet
4. Nissan Quest 3.5 SL, 18 mpg, 60 cubic feet

Midsized SUVs getting 18 mpg or more and having at least 32 cubic feet of cargo room:
Honda Pilot EX, 19 mpg, 42.5 cubic feet
Nissan Murano SL, 19 mpg, 35 cubic feet
Toyota Highlander Limited with V6, 18 mpg, 41.5 cubic feet
Volvo XC70, 18 mpg, 35.5 cubic feet
Lexus RX 330, 18 mpg, 34.5 cubic feet

Small SUVs rated at 20 mpg or more and having at least 30 cubic feet of cargo volume:
Toyota RAV4, 21 mpg, 36.5 cubic feet
Subaru Forester, 2.5X, 21 mpg, 35.5 cubic feet
Honda CR-V EX, 21 mpg, 32 cubic feet
Honda Element EX, 20 mpg, 47 cubic feet

Small wagons rated at 20 mpg or more and offering at least 25 cubic feet of storage volume:
Scion xB, 30 mpg, 33.5 cubic feet
Pontiac Vibe front-wheel drive, 26 mpg, 25 cubic feet
Toyota Matrix XR all-wheel drive, 24 mpg, 28 cubic feet
Ford Focus wagon, 23 mpg, 38 cubic feet
Volkswagen Jetta wagon GLS, 23 mpg, 33.5 cubic feet

 

Gee who would have figured the imports rule this.

 

who would have thought?

 

geez, and who would have thought that thats all they are good for?
IMPORTS

 

Crikey.

I was gonna go further than that, but lets not start a domestic vs. import war. But rest assured, stang mang... you're a dolt.

 

it's been tried before, but domestics can't beat imports buddy. don't try to start a battle as gold said, because facts don't lie.

 

Im not starting anything, im just saying what the facts are saying.... they are good at being economical (notice the lack of performance in that statement )

 

The Mercedes SL65 AMG and BMW M5.........both imports, both obviously lacking in performance