I'm on the fence on that since I wonder how much of that is due to tighter and more effective emission controls on newer cars. Also cars in the past 20 years have gotten far more efficient which means less gas burnt for a given number of miles. Like I say I'm not sure.
I question this.
There were a lot of 40-50mpg cars on the market in the 90's, that are gone today. Nothing on par with a Geo Metro, for instance. It's not fair to compare ICE/electric hybrids to a pure ICE vehicle like the Metro.
Larger displacement vehicles have been able to churn out more power and institute fuel saving operations inside of a very narrow power band, but if you don't live somewhere flat as a checker board then you don't get to drive in the manner needed to stay in that band.
I get the impression, watching cars since the 90's to today, that fuel economy has mostly stagnated because of the increased demand for more features in cars, and/or increased emissions standards that do not generate more power. The Metro wasn't the safest car in a crash, for sure, and it would be challenged to sell today when its crash ratings were compared to a 2020's Corolla or other competitor. And despite sipping gas like a Victorian Socialite at Tea, it probably had substandard emissions management by today's standards.
A 1995 Ford Taurus 3.0L V6 got 17city/26hwy mpg.
A 2015 Ford Taurus 3.5L V6 gets 18/26.
That's just one car and I don't have the patience to check a wide swathe of different makes and models, this just came to my head because it's what my dad drove when I was in high school, and it's still made recently.