>>1100482>trucks need to have massive displacements because...
They're intended to be able to tow up to 4.5 tons at US interstate speeds (70+mph) safely and efficiently. That requires both torque and horsepower, something small gas engines can't produce.>substandard components
Compared to what? This is a bullshit statement and you know it.>why do modern cars blow up so often and have horrible efficiency
In the 1960's you simply were not going to get 100,000 miles out of ANY vehicle, regardless of make, model, country of origin, or anything else. Period, end statement, full stop. Fuel efficiency is the best it's ever been at any engine size, we have big V8's getting better mileage now than the 1970's 2L 4bangers got and that's WITH less-ideal fuels (unleaded, high-ethanol-content gas and low sulfur highway diesel).
I'm going to assume you're both young, and not really a car guy. I'm certainly not old (mid 30's) but I collect antique cars. I've got two from the early 60's, one a big V8 (1964 Chrysler 300K) and the other a small flat-4 (1962 Karmann Ghia). They get very similar fuel economy even with period-correct, leaded, non-ethanol gas. The 300K gets 16mpg with its enormous 360hp 6.8L 413 wedge head, and the Ghia gets 17mpg with its measly 34hp 1192cc (1.2L) "volkswagen" flat-4.
Technological advances simultaneously increased horsepower and fuel efficiency. One of my other cars, a 1968 Chrysler New Yorker, gets 23mpg with its 7.2L 440 wedge head despite weighing nearly 700lbs more than the 300K and using the same automatic transmission. Jump a few more years to my '75 Dodge Dart and its 3.7L slant six and I'm getting 29mpg with the 4 speed manual.