I was poking around a couple of threads just now and came across some amazement of people getting blown away by a 2.3 getting +30 mpg. Have I missed something?

This is why I am a tad confused. My 80 sedan with 2.73 stock rear end gears will get 44 on flat ground. Mind you, this is a stock block with no rebuilds, a new head with stock cam, a jetted and tuned carb with a curved distributor and a 4 speed. It also passes CA smog in the 25th percentile with a new cat. My auto 1980 2.3 CW with what seems to have 4 horse power does much worse at 32 on flat land and 25 in the hills since my foot is in it. When It comes to bad mileage for me it is my 79 2.8 automatic with euro spec rebuild at 22mpg highway and about 20 feet per gallon on the road. I have a 77 2.8 auto that I built to correct stock specks (not 1970's American I don't care about balancing specs) that like my 79 is fully loaded with ac and ps. That car is an astounding highway runner at a max of 35mpg and an average of 29.

All of my cars will pass CA smog like nothing and I run catalytic converters on everything I own including my '74 Pangra which does not need it (but I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1980's and I know what brown air looks like and having burning lungs when walking to school, so I for one love the EPA for saving my lungs and life) and I know that the smog equipment does not hinder their efficiency. I think that is the main thing here, efficiency. I am fastidious about that. Every car I build is tuned perfectly (no, I don't know how to do this, I really wish I did but I don't have time for it) having carbs jetted, distributors curved and timing adjusted. My rebuilds, which I do myself, are all balanced withing zero grams. I don't even run headers since I hate them and my exhaust on all but one car is factory. It all reminds me when my friend installed a holly 1150 carb on his ancient oil burnig El Camino. He was confused why his car went slower and used more fuel.

Ignoring all that, these are econoboxes. Their only goal in life was good mileage which for the time, they were capable of.
This is why I am so confused about being surprised when the econobox gets good mileage.   

Anyway, what are your cars getting? Not your EFI cars, just your box stock runners.

True on that , also the way people drive , the pinto in a good state of tune will get good mileage, if you have mpg in mind when you drive , all my other pintos over years would get 30 pluss MPG when drove them in a sane kind of way , my 76 sedan touched 31 mpg one time , but the 2.8 V-6 has no smog stuff at all , but no carb eather, the EFI with headers , 2.9 crank with over drive helps,  I also drive a electric car , if you want range you have to also drive it with That in mind or I will be looking for a wall socket soon

My 1974 Runabout, brand new, never broke 19 mpg in the 2 1/2 years I owned it.  It was a 2.3L with a 4-spd. manual transmission.  Not great mileage, but better than the 12 mpg my parents' LTD Brougham got!  With gas selling then for 39 cents per gallon, I didn't consider it a big deal.  In the Pintos that I've owned in recent years, my 1.6L manual 1972 sedan got just a shade over 30 mpg on a trip.  My 2.0L automatic 1972 wagon does about 28 mpg on a trip.  All these cars were/are bone stock.  Modern technology has helped tremendously; I drove my 2015 Mustang 2.3L Ecoboost automatic convertible to Carlisle PA last summer and got 43.8 mpg. 

Dwayne

I am surprised to hear your 74's mpg was so low. My Grandpa had a 74 auto that got around 24mpg on the drive to Las Vegas when my uncle used to drive it. Maybe fuel and timing differences for different locations?

I have no idea.  What I DO remember is that my Dad thought the mileage was terrible and he took it back to the dealership several times for me (while I was at school) but they always said everything was okay with it.  It never improved.  Loved it in spite of the mileage!

Dwayne