60mpg Smart Cdi

[JRMichler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

36HP should be enough for anyone.

In a sane world, that would be true. Normal driving technique for Beetles was flat on the floor, shift at redline, and hope you did not get run over.

Gas mileage suffered because of so much time at wide open throttle fuel enrichment. A more powerful engine at part throttle might have given better gas mileage.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by JRMichler

In a sane world, that would be true. Normal driving technique for Beetles was flat on the floor, shift at redline, and hope you did not get run over.

Gas mileage suffered because of so much time at wide open throttle fuel enrichment. A more powerful engine at part throttle might have given better gas mileage.

Modern engine controls and proper cooling allows for 95% without enrichment, at least on an NA engine

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

36HP should be enogh for anyone

You should've seen me and a Senegalese guy freaking out when we saw a '93-'94 Hilux with oversized tires and a solid front axle. Not sure how the stock 77hp naturally-aspirated 2.8L Diesel could handle that without the assist of a turbo, but that was still so cool...

[AJI]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I bit my tongue the first time. 36HP should be enogh for anyone.

Sorry, once again very late to the discussion (I mainly dip into EM to update my fuel fills and forget there's a forum!)

The problem isn't inherently the power figure, so much as the power figure in context of other traffic. With this car's 54bhp (and weight somewhere in the high 700kg range, or call it 1700lbs) I'm far from a road block for other vehicles but the performance is pretty marginal sometimes, and even in the UK, a lot of other road users treat small cars like dirt, so it's nice to be able to put some distance between other cars sometimes - my Peugeot, at just over 100bhp and weight of 890kg/1960lbs, plus a manual gearbox and much better handling, feels way more comfortable in modern traffic.

I've thought about this often, but while I'm not an advocate for low national speed limits (such as the 55mph once used across the US), I'd think nothing at all of owning quite low-powered cars. I quite enjoy slow stuff, but only when there's no other traffic around...

There is one other issue with the Smart's power, and that's its poor aerodynamics, so economy really drops off significantly at higher speeds in a way my old Honda Insight did not. Both are capable of around 70mpg (imperial) at 70mph on flat ground with no wind. But while the Insight might drop to 50mpg up a grade at that speed, it's not unusual to see the instant mpg in the Smart drop to say, 35-40mpg. Ditto if there's a headwind, what would normally be an easy cruise can feel like you're really needing to use a lot of throttle to maintain speed.

I've now done about 14,000 miles in the car and I'm probably coming to the end of my time with it. It's been an interesting experiment. My main goal was to satiate my curiosity having owned the Insight - could the Smart have been a better choice?

The answer, I think, is no. The Smart does some things very well indeed but others very poorly, whereas the Honda was more consistent across the board. I think the issue too for the Smart is that in terms of per-mile cost, one of the 1-litre, petrol, conventional small cars on offer in Europe (such as the VW Up, Toyota Aygo etc) would actually be a better choice most of the time. They might not be as economical in extremis but they require less technique (and less effort) to extract their best economy, drive and perform better, and of course are generally more practical too.

[rmay635703]

Interesting, the 1st Gen Euro spec smart cars (1998) are legal for import

Lots of unobtainable is legal now

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by AJI

The problem isn't inherently the power figure, so much as the power figure in context of other traffic. With this car's 54bhp (and weight somewhere in the high 700kg range, or call it 1700lbs) I'm far from a road block for other vehicles but the performance is pretty marginal sometimes, and even in the UK, a lot of other road users treat small cars like dirt, so it's nice to be able to put some distance between other cars sometimes - my Peugeot, at just over 100bhp and weight of 890kg/1960lbs, plus a manual gearbox and much better handling, feels way more comfortable in modern traffic.

I might be more used to "underpowered" cars than you, even though there are some maniacs around driving powerful rides who eventually may seem like a threat to someone driving a more austere econobox.

[AJI]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I might be more used to "underpowered" cars than you, even though there are some maniacs around driving powerful rides who eventually may seem like a threat to someone driving a more austere econobox.

That's quite possible. I'm fairly comfortable with smaller and lower-powered cars (the majority of cars I've owned have been <100bhp and under a metric tonne/2200lbs) but some certainly make things easier than others. I'd say the Smart's issue isn't its power alone, as I think that power/torque to weight would be perfectly fine in a more aerodynamic shape.

For reference, the least powerful cars I've driven are a 23bhp Renault Juvaquatre from 1947, and an 18bhp Citroen 2CV from 1963 Loved both of them but since both have top speeds on the wrong side of about 60mph, I'd not want either for any more than a gentle countryside amble on a sunny weekend...

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Interesting, the 1st Gen Euro spec smart cars (1998) are legal for import

Lots of unobtainable is legal now

The 1990s European market had some absolutely fascinating cars, though it seems US folks are more interested in importing Japanese models so people are overlooking some great cars. I've not checked 1999's list but I bet there are some interesting cars becoming eligible for import next year, too...

The very early Smarts are quite charming, and had some absolutely mad colour schemes, but I suspect one would have to be quite dedicated to run one in the US, as they're less substantial even than the generation I'm driving.

[rmay635703]

The primary issue with importing Euro spec is the high cost

2003 Era Japanese LUPO is $3500 and up all in, Euro spec 1998 LUPO is at least $7000 before even buying the car.

Not sure why but it is very unfortunate

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Japan has stricter inspections on cars, so it's easier to just get rid of an "older" model, and they go for cheap.

Originally Posted by AJI

the least powerful cars I've driven are a 23bhp Renault Juvaquatre from 1947, and an 18bhp Citroen 2CV from 1963

I didn't really mean anything that extreme. I don't remember having ever driven anything "worse" than some 1.0L econoboxes from the '90s thru early 2000s.

[AJI]

New high watermark for a single journey.



This thing's somewhat optimistic with its mpg guesstimates so I reckon that's somewhere closer to the mid-80s (so about 70mpg US, or 3.3 litres/100km).

Warm weather (about 26C or 80F), and generally keeping to an indicated 60-62mph cruise partly due to traffic (stack of cars sitting nose to tail in the passing lane for most of the trip, so I just ducked out now and then to pass a lorry). 30mins of nose to tail traffic around an hour from the end of the trip which reduced the average speed and the mpg estimate a bit (it was sitting at 93mpg for a while).

Still on 3PMS-rated winter tyres too (it's such a low-performance car I'd rather have it be suitable for the UK's generally quite cold and wet weather and put up with them not being ideal in summer or higher rolling resistance) so could say it's got one hand tied behind its back.

Impressive it's capable of numbers like that but plan is still to sell it soon, as I'm still finding it just a bit too compromised for my use, and I really feel like treating myself with something quicker and more comfortable next...