It could very easily be made to look less like a cell phone and still retain a very low coeffiecent of drag though. Think of this kind of technology slapped into something resembling the lines of a MX5 mazda or the audi tt or 350Z. Couldn't absolutely retain the 200+ mpg. But with the right construction, (keeping the wieght to a minimum) and some careful wind tunnel design taken into hand there's no reason a manufacturer can't put out a 125mpg ,give or take, decent looking subcompact car. I think the biggest issue when it comes to producing something with very high milage over here is wieght. The current crop of sub-compacts all wiegh as much or more than my '66 Mustang (2619lbs. with me in it and a full tank) and don't get too damn much more in the way of mpg. And alot of the wieght problem comes from the infatuation with power gizmos, and our strict safety regs. (not saying airbags and gps, and power everydamnthigns are bad, just heavy) My business partner had an '82 Honda Accord wagon that with a fuel leak at the back of the carb was getting over 40mpg, 99% of the cars that size today get less in the way of fuel economy, likewise I'm able to pull off 26-27mpg on a '66 mustang with a swapped in 5spd., and a .060 over 289 with alot of cam, and 11.5:1 compression. I think it's absolute crap that a new 'stang with all the technology put into it to get better milage, burn cleaner, and improve aerodynamics gets the same or worse mpg.
