Ted B.
Ted aka Dave, that link shows the Galant 4 cylinder as being 2.3 liters (displacement rounded down?) and the mileage figures are:
MPG (city) 23 MPG (highway) 30 MPG (combined) 26
EPA ratings are usually overstated and most people don't get results seen in EPA labs. It's often because they drive too fast at higher RPM (the very thing you're trying to turn upside down). You claim in another post that EPA ratings are understated but you've got it backwards, which adds more doubt to your own figures. Check out these articles about EPA ratings being challenged.
You still haven't said HOW you're measuring the apparent 42 MPG. If it's a dash computer I'd question the inputs before buttuming that physics is being defied. Those computers are only as good as their sensors (flow meters, floats, fuel pumps or even tire diameter decrease due to wear). Those things could easily get out of calibration with age. It's unclear if you always saw the 42 MPG figure, and it's unlikely it was ever accurate.
Illogical RPM claims aside, I haven't heard of a car with more than a 2.0L (gasoline) engine getting 42 MPG. Mitsubishi is not known to have produced miracle cars. The only 2005 compact cars that meet or exceed your claims have either diesels or sub-2.0L engines. Low 30s Hwy MPG is very good for something around 2.3L to 2.5L, and that's with the latest technology.
Dream on; about the cops leaving you alone, and those spurious MPG claims. You should investigate why higher RPM (more power draw) in top gear could possibly give you better efficiency. I would never just accept it as some sort of magic effect.
C.T.
