7 Fuel Sipping Classic Cars For Thrifty Driving Enthusiasts

It might seem anachronistic to chase fuel economy when you’re hunting for a classic car. But it’s not absurd to want an affordable classic if that’s all your wallet can muster. And in that case, it’s probably also true that you’re hardly itching to shell out for a massive weekly thrashing at the pump. After all, however you define a classic, they tend to be parts-and-labor-costs hungry. At the time of this writing, AAA says the national average for a gallon of gas sits at $4.12, up 36% versus a year ago, when it was $3.04. And in California a gallon of regular will run you $5.87. Ouch.

Plus you’ve got a pocket humblebrag at the ready wherever you cruise in your fuel-sipping steed. Imagine showing up at a cars and coffee with your vintage ride and telling the assembled dudes (always, always, dudes) that your 1990 Honda CRX gets a combined 40-ish mpg  – which torches the fuel economy of most modern cars.

Even if you’re not solely chasing fuel economy, you can be frugal and have fun simultaneously. Take, for instance, a merely 23-year-old Mini Cooper S. It gets 31 mpg on the highway and its supercharged 1.6-liter engine can tug you to 60 mph in 6.9 seconds. That’s not too shabby for a car that Hagerty valuation puts at somewhere between $8,000 and $11,000. It’s pretty tough to name another used city ripper that lean on gas and as entertaining to drive.

Well, actually, I’ll try. Since the whole reason for this game is to induce debate among Jalopnik readers who live to lambaste our dumb lists.

The Honda CRX, according to Hagerty, has skyrocketed in value, up over 113% in the past three years. Now you’ll pay at least $14,000 for one. That said, what soulless used car might you get instead for that kind of money?

Plus, the CRX (in the HF “High Fuel” version) delivered up to 47 mpg! Even models with reasonably higher output, like the 91-horsepower 1.5Si, breached the 30 mpg mark. Possibly the reason the CRX has risen in collectors’ eyes has to do with the simple idea that a car that weighs less than 2,000 pounds doesn’t need more than 91 horsepower. And in the guise of the 1.5Si, a contemporary review in Car & Driver found the sport suspension ideal for twisty corners, and at 1,840 pounds, 91 horsepower was more than adequate. Yeah, every CRX should have featured two engines, but I’m guessing that’d be bad for fuel economy and the concept of this list.

If you’re hunting, from 1988 onward the CRX got four-wheel double-wishbone suspension and ditched the less advanced torsion-bar front and beam-axle rear of older CRXs. By 1990, Honda had added four-wheel disc brakes to the Si grade.

These lithe two-doors feature a funky non-second row, with a bench behind the front seats that can be flipped down to yield a reasonably capacious hatch space. That makes the CRX a more pragmatic sporty car than, say, the Fiat X 1/9 on this list. 

If you’re pursuing a classic that’s fuel-sipping, you probably don’t want to spend a fortune to acquire it. That’s kind of defeating the point. Toyota’s mid-engine MR2, which we got in many guises in the U.S. from 1985 through the early 2000s, has a strong following. Maybe too strong. Hagerty says turbocharged 200-horsepower W20s — the second-generation MR2 with softer shoulders and a longer wheelbase — run between $23,000 and nearly $39,000. 

Okay, those are faster. But at that price they’re blowing a huge hole in this story’s premise. Of course, the reason you want one is the same reason you might lust after the Fiat X 1/9 on this list. When they’re properly engineered, mid-engine cars can offer magical balance through corners; Hagerty called this first generation, the W10, “flickable.”

That’s the joy you’re after, and you can also still afford the W10, which averages from $10,300 to $18,000 per Hagerty. These were only good for 112 hp from a tiny 1.6-liter inline-4. But that still meant you could gallop to 60 mph in 8.2 seconds according to Car & Driver — and that version of the MR2 achieved 27 mpg in the city.

Want more oomph? One route is the middle-ground supercharged W10 MR2, which won’t hurt you too much at the pump, delivering 23 mpg city and 28 highway. Output jumped to 145 hp, resulting in a 6.5-second 0-60 sprint. Hagerty says these range between $15,800 and $26,200, which isn’t that harsh a price penalty, and still cheaper than later W20s.

Not that you need my two cents, since scads of automotive journalists have owned or currently own 1990s MX-5 Miatas, but in my experience this car absolutely fits the remit of both frugality and fun. Also, I stand firmly with the crowd that says everyone should drive a Miata at least once. I frequently loathe the fact I sold mine. It was a trouble-free grin machine. 

Okay, they’re slow, too. With a 116-hp 1.6-liter inline-4 you’re not going to win many stoplight wars. But that’s not what matters. The early 1990s MX-5 Miata, at 155 inches long (a scant 13 feet), is nearly 2 feet shorter than a current Porsche 911 Carrera. Pint-sized and low in weight — barely 2,200 pounds — makes carving around corners gloriously entertaining. To me, the Miata is one of very few cars that’s fantastically entertaining even when you’re driving slower than the speed limit. 

Hagerty says finding a Miata from the early 1990s ought to run you between about $7,000 and $12,200, and with a combined fuel economy of 24 mpg, these little five-speeds are reasonably economical to operate, if not exactly trying to swipe that Honda CRX’s crown. Miatas are also considered highly reliable, which is another measure of thrift. And that’s in contrast to the British two-seat sports cars of the 1960s and 1970s they were designed to copy.

The 1979 Fiat X 1/9 is neither as logical as the Honda CRX nor as practical. It’s here because it achieved 26 mpg city fuel economy and because we think the “driving enthusiasts” of our headline find going around corners more fun than bombing straight ahead.

Besides, with only 67 horsepower from its 1.5-liter engine, the Fiat X 1/9 wasn’t designed with the quarter mile in mind. Instead, with its mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive setup, the Fiat puts all its mass (plus, you, the driver) in the middle of the machine. Car & Driver argued that made the Fiat a blast for scorching around corners, and yet kind enough to less seasoned drivers. Meaning, it loses grip progressively, rather than suddenly, so it’s less likely to cause you physical harm. 

The magazine also found that it took nearly 12 seconds to journey to 60 mph, so if you’re hurt behind the wheel of the  X 1/9, it might be because other drivers have grown impatient in your wake. Then again, just let them pass! You’re cruising under sunshine thanks to the Fiat’s removable lightweight lid that can be stowed quickly in the front trunk. 

This Fiat is definitely emblematic of la dolce vita. Also, it’s a pretty affordable, sweet way to motor, since Hagerty ballparks a 1979 X 1/9 between $8,600 and $14,000. That’s not the $7,115 Car & Driver said this model cost when tested. But adjusted for inflation, that 1979 cash would be worth $35,100 today, so your $8,600 X 1/9 is a dang bargain.

Acura Integras from the late 1990s are no longer sleepers. Hagerty puts the high end of the 1997 Acura Integra Type R at north of $50,000. Is that expensive or cheap? The brand-new 320-horsepower Integra Type S costs about that much. Keeping budget constraints top of mind here, the Type R is a no-go. But the still-quick Integra GS-R averages more like $10,000 to $20,000 if you eyeball recent sales on Bring a Trailer. For instance, in September 2026, a 2000 Integra GS-R sold there for $20,750.

That’s still a car that brings the noise to the tune of 170 hp and an 8,100 rpm redline. My dad had one and I adored that car; he gave me the family Toyota Tercel instead. Woot. 

Putting my nostalgia aside, a 1994 Car & Driver shootout of hot hatches awarded the GS-R its top prize in large part for its blend of motorcycle-like revs, excellent five-speed gearbox, and the car’s predictable, capable, rewarding handling. Also, its 1.8-liter inline-4 is loud as hell when you’re deep in the throttle, which makes the Integra seem properly exotic. Yet, drive it sanely and it’s hardly deafening.

Is the Integra the most economical car here? Hardly. Its combined fuel economy of 24 mpg is just decent. Still, you’re getting a hatchback that’s cheaper on gas than lots of vintage muscle iron, and if you can find one around $20,000 you’ll be spending less than the price of any new sports car. You might also care that the Integra even has a functional backseat and decent luggage space.

By 1989, Mercedes-Benz was making very hot versions of the 190, which began production in 1982. For instance, a 1989 Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.5-16 Evolution, one of only 502 produced, was bid up to nearly $100,000 on Bring a Trailer this spring. Neat. But that hardly fits the mandate of frugality. 

The W120/190 series Benz you probably want would be the modest 72-horsepower 2.2-liter mid-1980s diesel, if in fact your goal is long-wearing life and relatively strong 30 mpg combined fuel economy. Oh, and also unlike a Cosworth-hotted-up 190 that’s ticking boxes for collectors capable of throwing down 100 grand, Hagerty puts the price of a used 190D with a base 2.2-liter diesel at as cheap as $3,500. 

You could spend a little more and get a modest power bump to the later 1980s 2.5-liter diesel with 93 horsepower, which still delivers 28 mpg combined, and Hagerty says will cost you between $4,067 and $7,367. Again, name any modern car you can find for so little money.  

All right, I know this is the least enthusiast-focused car in this compilation. But Mercedes gifted the 190 with a five-link rear suspension and gas-filled struts up front, and that yielded if not a purely sporty vibe, a very confident, modern and comfortable ride. You’re buying one because they’re cheap to acquire, drink diesel slowly, and like a lot of vintage Benzes, are solid as tanks.

Last year we told you the 2025 Mini Cooper S 4 Door is like a half-trained puppy you love with all your heart. The thing is, that car’s 2026 base price (even without optional paddle shifters) is $34,150 including destination. And there’s no option to get a stick-shift version. You may argue that it’s a new car, and with 201 horsepower will walk all over a 20-year-old version of the supercharged Mini Cooper S. Sure thing. But that 168-hp supercharged 1.5-liter inline 4 had more character than the turbocharged 2.0-liter in the new car. 

No, that didn’t make it quick. Its 0-60 mph times ran about 6.9 seconds, while the new one takes 6.3 seconds. Seriously, do you want to pay nearly $30,000 more for a new Mini Cooper S that’s less than a second faster to 60 mph, when a 2005 just sold for $4,000 on Bring a Trailer?

There’s a Cooper S in my extended family, so I get to drive one pretty regularly. It needs some work. All old cars do. But this one has north of 200,000 miles and it’s still ripping around. Just remember to find one with the fun six-speed when you look for your O.G. Mini Cooper S R53, and avoid the version with the continuously variable automatic transmission. Our Mini Cooper burns a little oil, roughly half a quart every three months, which isn’t a big deal, and the EPA combined average fuel economy of 25 mpg is spot on. 

Today, this counts as a small car, but it’s big enough to be useful, with flip-down rear seats and enough gumption to keep up on the interstate. Fun, frugal, and just old enough to have loads of character? Check, check, and check.