What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

Again, SMART is primarily a dedicated city car. When it snows, you park it for a couple days, just like you would a ZENN or a motor scooter. It's a vehicle designed for a very specific purpose and once outside its design parameters, its shortcomings begin to show. Ditto for a Ferrari in bumper to bumper traffic all day. Wrong car for the conditions, so I don't think the snow thing is a fair criticism.

jlawrence01 · December 2007

The major problem with the Sprinter IMHO has been the lack of reliability. They generally rank very low among all vehicles. And their competitors - Ford and Chevy do vans very well.

tiff_c · December 2007

Again, SMART is primarily a dedicated city car. When it snows, you park it for a couple days, just like you would a ZENN or a motor scooter. It's a vehicle designed for a very specific purpose and once outside its design parameters,

Well it sure does snow in some cites and those same people have to park their cars same as before. The Smart will fail unless they can sort out basic issues. I hope it succeeds but lots of congested cities get snow and those people who can't drive their one and only car in the snow will not buy a Smart. Maybe they need an AWD model?
But it's a very fair thing to compare to unless you only sell in Florida and Kalifornia.

dromedarius · December 2007

The whole concept doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as expensive as a Fit or Yaris and doesn't have near the interior space w/little to no mileage improvements. If Honda or Toyota had made this car I can't imagine it being so limited. It seems the designers got to consumed w/the cutesy concept and forgot this car has to work in the real world. In any case, this car's world is VERY small...

stever · December 2007

Some dealer here in Boise is selling a last year's Smart imported by Zap with low, low miles on it for $27,995. Weird link that probably won't work long.

I hope I'm not caught dead in my minivan - I'd rather die in my bed at home. :P The Sprinters interest me from a conversion standpoint, but they are too big for home use. My Quest barely fits in my garage as it is.

robertsmx · December 2007

75 dealers for a niche/city vehicle doesn't sound too bad, considering that Lexus has only 180 (or so I read a while ago).

The real problem may be... is that too many? :P

robertsmx · December 2007

That is quite an "MB S-Class" for $279,999.

bumpy · December 2007

The whole concept doesn't make sense to me.

The real-world mileage is about 15-20% better, it's a quarter-ton lighter, and it's RWD.

stever · December 2007

Just a "minor" typo but the $28k real asking price is pretty pie in the sky too!

michaellno · December 2007

On the TLC channel there is a show entitled "Jon and Kate Plus 8", which profiles a family in PA who have a set of twins (age 7) and a set of sextuplets (age 3).

The family has two vans ... the "small" van is either a Honda Odyssey or Mazda MPV, while the "large" van is a Dodge Sprinter. It's got seats for 11 (I think), and it takes them about 30 minutes to get everyone buckled in.

There was an episode on recently where they had rear a/c added to the Sprinter ... I can't imagine having those kids in there in the heat of a PA summer without it.

I've looked on-line at the RV conversions that are done on the Sprinter chassis .. I believe the starting price is somewhere around $68K.

texases · December 2007

Those aren't sales or orders, those are refundable deposits

Two reasons they could sell out this year with no long-term implications:
1. It's new - just about every new thing/fad has huge, temporary demand that quickly goes away.
2. The "PS3 flip" syndrome - folks were lining up to buy PS3 at release with no intention of owning/using them, just selling them on Ebay. A failed strategy in most cases.

oregonboy · December 2007

off topic: my younger daughter successfully flipped 2 Nintendo Wiis last Christmas season for a tidy profit. Let's hear it for a young entrepreneur identifying and exploiting a mismatch between supply and demand in our market economy. :shades:

On topic: don't you hate it when car dealers do that with ADM stickers?

james

texases · December 2007

What's sauce for the goose...

I hear he could still do that this year with the Wii...no chance with a PS3!

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

You might flip a Smart for a few bucks if you catch that narrow window...but unless the deposit receipts are salable and tranferable, or unless you have a dealer's license, you're going to have to pay sales tax before you flip, so there goes that profit--if you take possession of the car.

snakeweasel · December 2007

that Daimler is looking to test an EV Smart in American cities (suggesting that the gas car is not delivering the expected economy?)

How does testing an EV version suggest that the car is not delivering the expected economy?

In 10 years, in 37 countries,

Have they been in all 37 country all ten years?

snakeweasel · December 2007

Not a horrible figure, but horrible enough to lose money since the Smart was introduced. It's NEVER MADE MONEY!

Smart has lost money but has the Twofor lost money? Remember that up to recently Smart had the Fourfor and the roadster which my understanding sold very poorly. It could have been that those two models were big losers and the Twofor has actually made money.

snakeweasel · December 2007

It's almost as expensive as a Fit or Yaris and doesn't have near the interior space w/little to no mileage improvements.

Its a bit less expensive than the Fit or Yaris. If it gets the promised mileage it will blow away the Fit or Yaris in that aspect.

boaz47 · December 2007

Sorry, but there is no real virtue to buying one petrol consuming product over another. Except in ones own mind. You can also bet your pocket protector that getting a bigger vehicle is simply a wants based purchase. Getting a smart will not be needs based because there are plenty of vehicles getting Smart mileage and providing more utility. The converse of large vehicle people getting a status symbol is micro car self righteousness. The foolish believe that on a global scale the people in China will care one whit what you saved so they can buy from the same people we do. Europe and Asia have had small cars for as long as we have had big cars and has fuel consumption gone down in one of those areas? When Europe decided to promote diesel what happened? Air quality went down and oil prices still went up. So if Europe's move to small cars has had not real effect and Asia's small cars have had no real effect. And even the Asian cars imported to the US has had no real effect.

"Save the planet, buy small cars" is nothing more than Chicken little saying the sky is falling. This whole forum has proved that people buy sub compacts because they like sub compacts not because they get the best fuel mileage or are the least expensive to buy.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

How so? A Yaris can pull 38-42 mpg on a good day. I think at 75 mph the Yaris might blow the Smart away. We'll see.

RE: Why does mention of an EV suggest disappointing fuel mileage? Well, if you were producing a gas car that got 75 mph, why would you market an electric, with shorter range and slower speeds? Or a diesel for that matter? (no advantage).

snakeweasel · December 2007

According to the EPA the yaris gets 36 highway 29 city far below the expected 40 (or more) city that the smart is supposed to get.

Well

Well nothing there is a push for EV no matter what, does Toyota making a EV RAV 4 suggest disappointing fuel mileage? No it didn't. It would seem you are making something out of nothing.

There is a small demand for EV's that will grow as they grow in range. Any manufacturer would be smart to test EV versions of at least some of their cars to pave the way to go into full production once technology reaches the point where it will be reasonable to mass produce Ev's.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

Users are reporting higher mileage than EPA. So who you gonna believe? :P

Sample comments: (no cherry-picking, I swear, just as I read them).

"near 40 mpg on the highway"
"been averaging about 38 miles per gallon"
"We have managed to get 40 mpg"
"The best is its fuel efficiency (40MPG)"
"mileage averaging 39-41 MPG"
"t consistently gets between 37-42 mpg."

ANYWAY, we'll see.....

I think the Edmunds review summed the SMART up fairly enough What do you all think?

"But for those who routinely drive on the highway, the Fortwo just doesn't make sense -- even if it gets phenomenal gas mileage. A similarly priced subcompact will handle high speeds better; ditto the much more expensive but greener Prius. The 2008 Smart Fortwo isn't a good choice for most consumers, but for certain urban-based drivers, it's most definitely worth consideration."

snakeweasel · December 2007

Users are reporting higher mileage than EPA. So who you gonna believe?

EPA site also gives drivers reporting their mileage. Eliminating the extreme highs and lows they are not doing to much better than the EPA estiments and even the high ones are doing worse on the highway than the smart is supposed to get in the city.

We will see when the EPA comes out with their estiments. FWIW the Canadian Smart website gives about 43 city and just shy of 50 highway.

I think the Edmunds review summed the SMART up fairly enough What do you all think?

You mean the review that stated "It's no sports car, but it is fun."?

jlawrence01 · December 2007

've looked on-line at the RV conversions that are done on the Sprinter chassis .. I believe the starting price is somewhere around $68K.

Do realize that they make the Sprinter as a passenger van which could be had for significantly less than $68k.

lilengineerboy · December 2007

~35k w/diesel and the shorter wheelbase

boaz47 · December 2007

I wonder how many times I see your point as clearly as I do this one. A city car has its place and maybe the smart can fill that place. But the Smart hasn't filled the niche in places where it should. If it can't make it in Europe how is the world will they make it in the land of the Super highway?

For a City car I believe a EV would be great. In fact if we sell this house and move to the place in the desert I would get one of the Chrysler EV street legal things to run around town and keep the Truck and the Pontiac. But living in Southern California it is hard to get from one city to the next without going on the Freeway. Just thinking about a Smart on the freeway gives me chills.

ttai · December 2007

"Eliminating the extreme highs and lows they are not doing to much better than the EPA estiments...." eerrrrr?????

What kind of government creative accounting is this? Why don't you just accept
the average like the chart has? The Yaris manual gets 37 mpg average. EPA
shows 32 MPG. I'd say that's pretty significant.

I actually like the Smart for it's cool, small fun size. It's kinda like a go kart with
a roof. I had a motorcycle so taking this thing on the freeway is no problem for
me. No Fear. I am disappointed with the price. $10,000 is a fair price for it.

robertsmx · December 2007

To put mileage in perspective, in city (both ratings using fuel economy rating in UK)
Honda Jazz (Fit): 41.5 mpg
Smart TwoFour: 46.0 mpg

So, Smart has a little edge. But, does it make up for the compromises? Fit can replace a Civic, while the Smart basically replaces a motorcycle/scooter.

tiff_c · December 2007

The whole concept doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as expensive as a Fit or Yaris and doesn't have near the interior space w/little to no mileage improvements. If Honda or Toyota had made this car I can't imagine it being so limited.

Oh it does make sense in a very crowded city as it's cheaper to park on the street and the Smart is all about parking in small spaces and getting good economy doing it. The Fit and Yaris or Scion xD (aka Yaris 5 door) will fit into tight spaces as well but not nearly as well as the Smart. Smart is the car you buy for a good parking space and not much else which is why it's sales are slow. It needs better economy and be more fun to drive like a manual tranny with a diesel engine.
The Smart should be getting 60mpg minimum in the City to make it worthwhile IMO.

iluvmysephia1 · December 2007

SmartForSomeone sells in Japan? I mean, it's cities are crowded and tight for space and the Smart is great for that. So, will they blindly follow their own manufacturers and buy the Yaris, Fit and Suzuki kei-size cars? Probably, but not definitely. Somebody follow that statistic for us in their spare time and I'll get back to you on it, OK?

lilengineerboy · December 2007

I actually like the Smart for it's cool, small fun size. It's kinda like a go kart with
a roof.

I would say its more like a ATV or quad with a roof. I think there is a perception that a go-cart handles well, is low to the ground, and eh mid-engined. I think the Fiero/MR2 fit the bill better than the Smart, and the Fiero was originally designed for the same niche market.

I had a motorcycle so taking this thing on the freeway is no problem for
me.

A motorcycle has the ability to maneuver out of trouble and can go from 0-60 in 1/3 the time of the Smart, leaving a lot of options to, as my driving instructor would say, "be somewhere else."

snakeweasel · December 2007

What kind of government creative accounting is this?

Its not governmental accounting its basic statistics. In cases like this you become very critical of extreme highs or lows in reporting something like this as abnormalities. People can misremember, calculate wrong, have wrong facts or just outright lie. When something lies way outside the norm, say like everyone reporting between 32 and 36 MPG and someone comes along and reports 42MPG you should look at the 42 with suspect.

Either way the Smart does really beat the Yaris by a long shot if it gets what the Canadian website claims.

$12K for a car that does everything I need it to do and gets above 40 city sounds like a winner in my book.

snakeweasel · December 2007

Per the Canadian website the Smart uses 5.9 liters per 100 Kilometers resulting in about 40 MPG city

Per the EPA website the Fit gets 34 Highway.

big difference.

But we will see when we get the EPA estiments

dgecho1 · December 2007

you're right! Buy the biggest, most bloated SUV possible...drive any way you want to...waste it if you want like there is not tomorrow..after all, we are AMERICANS..and, can do whatever we want!

lilengineerboy · December 2007

$12K for a car that does everything I need it to do and gets above 40 city sounds like a winner in my book.

I too think that would be great, unfortunately the Smart isn't that car for me. I think a 3-5 year old VW TDI would be a lot closer for me, especially since the hwy mileage is a bigger factor for me than city.

dromedarius · December 2007

You're comparing Canadian mileage figures for the smart to American mileage figures for the Fit and/or Yaris but isn't the Canadian gallon larger???

:confuse:

bumpy · December 2007

5.9 L/100 km is 39.875 miles per US gallon

dromedarius · December 2007

I completely agree w/you regarding the smart; I can't see it being a practical purchase for 99.5% of the US population.

However, you are 100% wrong saying there is no virtue to making do w/less (which I don't see as a sacrifice anyway). If EVERYONE in the US got 2 MPG better we would be MUCH better off. I don't care what the Chinese do. If they want to purchase more, so be it. If we can cut down on our polution and our dependence on foreign oil not only are we better off, but more importantly our children are as well. I don't like being at the beckon call of dictators who hate us and want to end our way of life. All these people claiming "I can do what I want" won't be able to much longer if we continue to live so frivolously.

robertsmx · December 2007

You're comparing two different standards. I used one. That said, I could see an impact of 4-5 mpg in midsize/20-22 mpg class. Once we get into high mileage cars, practicality becomes far more important than saving 10% on fuel economy, especially if those savings are limiting (and restricted to largely urban driving).

boaz47 · December 2007

I think the whole subject is what is wrong with sub compacts. It would also seem as if that questions was aimed at the US consumer. The US consumer has shown preferences for larger vehicles than the Asians and Europeans so there must be a reason. we have more paved roads than they do. We average more miles than they do. We even tend to have larger houses than they do. Every country does what they feel is best for their country with little or no regard for other countries that is just how the world works. In African nations they drive even more diesels than they do in Europe. In fact most of the old Nissan and Toyota Diesel mini vans seem to have gone to Africa and Israel. On a hot day you can see and smell belching clouds of black smoke as each one drives passed using the lowest grade of diesel they can buy. Is there a condemnation for this practice? No because we aren't about judging how other cultures address these issues. Yet somehow we are expected to flog ourselves for the success of our nation and feel guilty for not having the same restrictions on transportation as some other have.

Sub Compacts have as much right on our roads as any other car, that has never been an issue or the question. We have just shown as a society a preference for something more comfortable or with more power and yes even something as large as a SUV. It does not make US consumers evil simply because we haven't embraced the plight of drivers in other countries. We had clean air standards when Europe was still burning peat as heating fuel up to about 15 years ago. No one assumed they were evil because they were spewing dirt into the air and didn't care about American air. we simply have a different lifestyle and SUV and quad cab trucks work for us better than they do for people in other countries. We have no reason to feel guilty for being successful as a nation and for taking advantage of that success.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

Once you get the Smart on the highway, it will, I predict, lose ANY advantage in MPG over a Yaris. The faster you run a small engine, the more fuel it consumes because you cannot gear it to overdrive.

The Prius has already suffered the same fate. It's got great city mileage but when people take it on the freeway, their overall MPG sits right around 41-44 mpg, and this was a far cry from EPA or Toyota brochures.

Once again, a SMART only makes sense to a city dweller/driver who values parking over everything else, and is willing to pay a premium for that one advantage (presuming his city allows perpendicular parking and offers other perks to SMARTS).

RE; LIARS -- I don't think the people reporting 40 MPG + on their Yaris on this site are liars. If they are, they must have all agreed to tell the same lie. :P

robertsmx · December 2007

People can misremember, calculate wrong, have wrong facts or just outright lie. When something lies way outside the norm, say like everyone reporting between 32 and 36 MPG and someone comes along and reports 42MPG you should look at the 42 with suspect.

Have you ever shared your numbers to EPA's website? Calling those who do liars is the last thing that comes to my mind. I don't know about you, but I find the new EPA rating ridiculous. There is no way I can get 26 mpg in my TL on highway, unless (perhaps) I drive at 90 mph all day long. I get 24-26 mpg (lately, 26 mpg has been difficult perhaps due to traffic congestion and winter fuel, still got 24.9 mpg on last tank). Same with 98 Accord. 27 mpg on highway? How about 32-33 mpg at 80 mph?

The worst tank ever in either car is around 23 mpg, and over 236K miles. Interestingly enough, even that is better than the suggested combined mileage by EPA. So, tell me why I should take EPA more seriously than my personal observation, and reporting by others who seem to get similar mileage as I do?

Interestingly enough, the one that seems to lie outside of the norm is the EPA rating. At their website, 2007 Fit/Auto has 26 observed fuel economy. Among those, reported with 40-60% city, all but one exceeded EPA's rating. You may choose to disbelieve them all and stick with EPA, I won't.

oregonboy · December 2007

dromedarius, you make an excellent point regarding fuel savings.

The simple fact is that petroleum is a finite resource and while it won't run out overnight, at some point production will peak, demand will exceed supply, prices will increase dramatically (we ain't seen nothin' yet), and some areas will experience shortages. This may not happen this week, this month, or this year, but there is a very good chance that it will happen within ten years. :surprise:

When it does happen, what do you want parked in your garage? What do you want parked in all of you neighbors garages across the city/state/country? Hummers? :confuse:

The time to prepare is now, not after the situation becomes critical. :shades:

james

boaz47 · December 2007

All I am saying is the virtue is in your mind not reality. We already have cleaner pollution standards than Europe. They allow more particulants than we do. As we get more drivers we use more fuel and I can easily get 8 MPG better fuel mileage with a SUV simply by changing to a diesel. We could keep our vehicles just the way they are and save even more fuel if we refused to go shopping in the malls. we could save fuel even more if we went back to neighborhood schools and sold all the school busses. Cars only represent about 50 percent of the fuel and energy we use in the US. How much energy would we save by having smaller houses. After 911 fuel prices dropped by close to 75 cents a gallon simply because we cut back on Air travel just in this country. There are many things we could do that would save just as much as giving up our SUVs and trucks. Doing one of those things is no more virtuous than doing the other. It all depends on what soap box you are standing close to.

My complaint with Sub Compacts is they do not provide enough additional benefits over a current compact when the Corolla gets better fuel mileage than a Fit and the price is the same. I don't assume the owner of the Fit is an Ugly American because they decided the benefits of that car were worth the extra fuel it burns over the Corolla. It simply all breaks down to personal preferences.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

The Fit is far more versatile than the Corolla. It's more useful, that's why people buy it. And that utility doesn't give up gas mileage, so that's another perk. A Fit is not an irrational choice by any means, but a Hummer is unless you are a commando or a big game hunter I guess, where you really really need to crawl up the sides of mountains.

dromedarius · December 2007

I would like to see people live in smaller houses (judging by the current foreclosure situation, they probably do, too), use fluorescent bulbs, carpool, fly commercial, etc., etc. My conservation streak is not limited to JUST SUVs and trucks. My point is if everyone had the myopic view "I can do what I want" we'd be in even more trouble, but conversely, EVERY person who changes their lifestyle just LITTLE bit can make a difference, especially as those numbers grow.

john500 · December 2007

I agree with snakeweasel on this one. If you asked 100 people how to calculate the fuel economy in their car, I would guess you would get 10 different answers and I suspect that is where a lot of the variation comes in. The way I record fuel efficiency is to fill up at time 1 (and do not top the tank - let the vapor lock stop the fill). Ride around for some distance to about 1/2 the tank volume and then fill up at time 2 when the ambient temperature is the same. This will ensure that the tank doesn't expand significantly (since the gasoline T is generally constant since it is stored underground). Even this technique has the problem that as you consume gasoline, the weight of the vehicle gets lower. Therefore, if I rode around until the gauge was nearly empty, I should get somewhat higher fuel economy due to a weight of the vehicle. I would like to hear you ask 10 people you know how they compute fuel efficiency and see if you still believe the 42 mpg outlier (try to avoid people in occupations that deal with measurements and constraints i.e. avoid engineers, scientists, accountants).

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

Yeah but when 90% of the reported MPG are in one clump and only 10% are in the outlying data, why would you believe the 90% are calculating incorrectly?

iluvmysephia1 · December 2007

people be required? For instance, take mpg numbers from 1,000 people instead of the current 100 people and then average out all of their results. Then compare to what youv'e got now.

robertsmx · December 2007

I don't take the pain that you seem to go for, calculating mileage. I just filled up my Accord. 366 miles, 14.03 gallons (auto-stop) which is good for 26.1 mpg. I can literally place a bet that my next tank will get me somewhere close to 26 mpg unless driving conditions change drastically.

My driving conditions is approximately 50-50. On highway, I will drive between 60-80 mph, but mostly around 70-72 mph. This is an old car (1998, 184K miles). This is the same car that has returned 32+ mpg on long (500+ mile) road trips with speeds averaging over 75 mph (and thats average, including time spent at stop(s)).

EPA tells me this car should get 27 mpg highway, 21 mpg in city. Tell me, what makes their number more credible, and why I shouldn't rely on what I observe.

My numbers are consistent with numbers being quoted by others. Yet, I must believe they are liars (and so am I)? Gas/tank expansion/contraction theory is fine, but those differences are minimal enough to even worry about on this scale. And that car isn't the only one. I have another that makes me call the new EPA rating system a joke.

iluvmysephia1 · December 2007

I have that is a compact car, get 32 mpg highway(like I do) and 20 mpg in town (like I do) why would I want a subcompact car?

If I liked the design of a subcompact car I would buy one but so far I don't see a car design I like more than the '08 Mitsu Lancer GTS compact. And parking in my little town and even Tucson and Safford and Sierra Vista for shopping is laid-back southern Arizona, not up-tight Philadelphia, Chicago or New York City type of parking. So parking is not an issue.

Mpg with subcompacts is currently not good enough. For my next car I am going to look at all the electrics available at that time (probably around the year 2012 or 2013 at the rate I'm putting mileage on my Lancer GTS) and pick one that I like. By then hopefully the range of travel with one charge-up will improve significantly, manufacturer's will increase the max.speed one can go in an all-electric vehicle, the initial cost to buy the vehicle will drop with good sound technology and mass-production, and the whole issue of re-charging these EV's will have been figured out and implemented by then. If I'm gonna buy a small ICE vehicle then the car should get a minimum of 40 mpg and hopefully 45-50 mpg, and up.

Otherwise I will enjoy my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS and it's better carrying capability than a subcompact and similar gas mileage to one. It's good to have a little more room to store things and seat more people comfortably for excursions, etc.

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles