That's not "overhang" you are describing andre, although it might seem like a protrusion of some sort--overhang is "sprung mass"---that would be what's bouncing ON the suspension in front of the front wheels. An engine isn't "overhang", more like "underhang" (??)--
So overhang isn't the same as unsprung weight, the latter being the weight of the axles, suspension, etc.
Cars designs of the 70s and 80s suffer from both excess overhang and excess unsprung weight. Stylistically some of these cars might appeal, but in engineering they are seem to be far less than ideal.
A subcompact solves both these problems, or gets closer to solving them, by not only eliminating overhang (stubby nose) but using lightweight parts for unsprung weight as well.
RWD cars can also solve these dynamic problems with intelligent design and are doing so. You won't ever see RWD cars with three feet of metal and chrome in front of a extra-heavy beam axle again I don't think.
Well you can get rid of bad design but you can't get rid of bad drivers. Maybe stability control will help the really incompetent drivers from bouncing off guardrails.
Well if you get rid of the guardrails you will eventually get rid of the bad drivers.
Ducking and running.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ah, the Darwinian approach to traffic control---alas, as in nature, too brutal.
But take heart, traffic deaths are going down at a good clip even while miles driven goes up and car size goes down. Surely the safety features of newer cars has something to do with this.
Except that the turbo is only 10:1 for a reason. The effective compression at the stock 7.35 psi of boost is about 15:1. There is room for more boost (Brabus hit the numbers you're suggesting), but it has to be carefully managed and compensated for. **** I know that, which is why I was suggesting a 10-20% boost over stock, which is always within normal specs(given that engineers always give themselves 20-30% leeway in a design).
It's like overclocking a CPU. 10-20% isn't going to do much at all to affect the lifespan and won't need severe mods or anything.
100HP would make for a sweet ride. And it would be great for marketing as well, much like 50mpg is(magic numbers in both cases that get attention/noticed)
But you won't get 100HP and 50 mpg at the same time probably, because you'll need larger injectors and more fuel for cooling the high-boost charge. Turbos can get gas-hungry.
You can get a Corolla for some of the 17-21K prices of a subcompact, and get same MPG, similar prices!
Small cars may be fun, but so is living( as in, I'd rather drive a compact, or larger vehicle, than get squashed in an wreck with something the size of a Sebring, ). This thread keeps on going, doesn't it!? About 1 year- or more -already!
Anyhow.... heard a lot of other makers are looking at diesels, next gen, and should not cost an arm and leg, either, and get similar or better MPG as the subcompacts and compacts, or hybrids, even!
Hey,anyone old enough here to remember the (Suzuki built) Chevy Sprint, later called Geo Metro?' I heard it was getting anywhere from mid-40's to around 60 MPG? 5 door car. Rode in one once, in 1989. Not too bad, for the times. Where are the "Sprints/Metros" of today? That might be the one "tiny" car I'd Perhaps think of buying( and risking my life?) for 50+ MPG, using only a (3 cylinder?) normal gas engine. Thought I heard the last version sold had a 4 cylinder, but the increase in HP, and 1 extra cylinder(weight, too?) lowered the MPG to 36-40 MPG?
That's why SMART is a money-loser and always has been---it's a novelty item, not a real contender in the fuel economy market IMO. Maybe it should be sold in Sharper Image stores or trimmed in white fur for the hammacher schlemmer christmas catalog?
So what's the SMART's fatal flaw?
In my opinion, its size. Cars don't have to be that small to be that economical, and 95% American cities are not in the space crush that European cities are, not even close.
That requires SMART to duel strictly on gas mileage, and the new wave of subcompacts are so competent they can easily compete. And they are only going to get better, whereas SMART doesn't have the capital to get better.
Not to be too glum about it, they'll sell a few thousand, like Vespas do. And their owners will enjoy them, as Vespa owners do.
Hey,anyone old enough here to remember the (Suzuki built) Chevy Sprint, later called Geo Metro?
Yea, I remember my Geo Metro (1992 model). Used to get mid 40's in city and 54 on the Hwy, with that 3-cyl 1.0L engine with 5-speed transmission, coasting between 55 and 60 mph. Had 5 doors, and good enough for 2 adults and 2 kids. But the car was too small, IMO. It would start shaking at above 70mph or so, and wouldnt feel very safe.
I think Geo got assimilated by Chevrolet, and after a few years they discontinued all their models, the Metro (Swift clone), Tracker, and Prism (Corolla clone).
In those days (90's) the Corollas had mid-30's for mileage, and they have upped it to the low 40's now. With that kind of mileage, I don't see the need for all these new (and smaller) sub-compacts.
I am looking forward to the 2009 Prius, expecting 100+ mpg. Wishful thinking? We'll see. Best regards, - MS.
Sorry bout that. I threw out that number because that's what I figured a year ago based on gas AND payment AND insurance. I just forgot when typing my message that I needed to break out one part of the number.
Its actually $75 just in gas, though. Ya gotta take the 40 cent price difference of premium and regular into account, too.
But, hey, $75 in gas is still a big deal! ;b
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Sorry bout that. I threw out that number because that's what I figured a year ago based on gas AND payment AND insurance. I just forgot when typing my message that I needed to break out one part of the number.
Heck, back in late 1999, when I went from a 1989 Gran Fury copcar to a 2000 Intrepid, I figured it was saving me about $125-150 per month. And that was back when gas was only about $1.40 per gallon! I was doing an easy 3,000 miles per month back then, though, delivering pizzas. The Gran Fury got about 13 mpg and preferred premium (about 20 cents more than regular) and the only way the Intrepid would drop below 20 mpg would be in cold, nasty winter weather, running on that oxygenated crap.
If I made that same transition nowadays, with $3.00+ gas, I'd save at least $250 per month!
In that kind of driving, I'd realistically get around 30 mpg with something like a Corolla. Back in 1999, with $1.40 gas, that would've saved me an extra ~$70 monthly over the Intrepid. Didn't seem worth it at the time. With today's prices though, it would be more like another $150 per month savings. I think I might be able to tolerate it for that kind of savings!
Let's face it...the only REAL justification for buying a Prius is that you are supporting that type of technology---which isn't a bad reason at all.
At 3K miles a month, you bet a subcompact makes sense.
As I might have stated before, one should look at one's transition from one vehicle to another in terms of GALLONAGE, not mpg...GALLONAGE takes into account both your starting point (how many mpg your old car got) as well as your miles driven per month.
What I mean is that the gallonage is significantly more impressive if you're going from 12 mpg to 17mpg rather than 38 mpg to 43 mpg.
When I bought my new house I moved 30 or so minutes away from my job. Previously I was less then five minutes away from my job. I would have taken my bike to work if the roads weren't so bad(narrow no shoulder and busy all the time)and I wasn't going up a mountain both ways.
I was driving a Disco that got between 12-14 mpg no matter what but I was only putting five miles a day on it. My new commute was going to be 35 miles a day so I swapped the Disco out for a Forrester that gets around 25 mpg.
As I might have stated before, one should look at one's transition from one vehicle to another in terms of GALLONAGE, not mpg
The REAL savings comes less from the fuel economy of your vehicle as it comes from changing your lifestyle to drive fewer miles.
Had a great weekend and drove 4.5 miles instead of the 200+ I had planned.
As for the hybrid technology, going from 38mpg on a gas Civic to 44 on a hybrid just does not get me excited to spend that much more on the new technology.
I doubt either one will get that mileage in the real world. More like 30 for the Accent, 40 for the Smart.
Shifty's point is you get diminishing returns. Go from 6mpg to 10mpg and you save TONS on fuel. Go from 36 to 40 mpg and there's hardly any savings at all.
Accent isn't even particularly efficient for its class.
35 is what I get in the Accent every day. The smart gets a 48 mpg combined rating (4.9 liters/100km), and the way I drive I believe I could get 60 out of it easily.
I could save a staggering amount of gas versus driving the 9 mpg truck every day, but I don't drive the truck every day. The smart will save me more gas than a Yaris or a Civic or a Prius or another Accent would.
You're on the right track bump but I don't think 60 mpg is anywhere near the real world mileage on a SMART. At least the road tests don't think so. To be safe you should presume maybe 35 mpg vs. 48 mpg.
You remember how the Prius was touted at 60 mpg but most people I know are averaging 41-44.
Those numbers are now reasonably accurate for the Prius. That's exactly what my friends are getting. I know that "hypermilers" get more by coasting downhill with the key off, windows duct-taped and seats ripped out, but for most of us, the new EPA mileages are pretty much "real world".
I don't think 60 mpg is anywhere near the real world mileage on a SMART. At least the road tests don't think so.
I think that's unduly pessimistic for my circumstances. I drive almost all highway miles, coast in neutral on deceleration, never floor the gas pedal, only exceed half the engine's range on the 1-2 shift, etc. Not full-blown hypermiling, but good enough to skunk the EPA ratings regularly. Given the smart has better power- and torque-to-weight ratios, I should be able to drive it with a lighter pedal than the Hyundai.
I'm just looking at the physics of it all, and I believe that most Americans driving normally in America are going to get about 45 mpg. You'll be outside the bell curve because you are patient and clever enough to beat the odds!
the only vehicles where I could really beat the EPA number were relative guzzlers. My '89 Gran Fury was EPA-rated at 13/15. I could easily break 20 mpg on the highway with it...and that's at speeds of 70-80 mph. Being a copcar, it had quicker gearing than the civilian models, a 2.94:1 rear, versus 2.26:1. While that should turn it into more of a guzzler, you'd think, 2.94:1 still isn't exactly screaming. Plus, it was much less likely to downshift at higher speeds. Or run into those moments where you'd stomp it, and nothing would happen other than wasting gas. Instead, it would just take off.
Back when it was newer, my '85 Silverado (well, it was Granddad's then) could easily get lower 20's on the highway. And it's only EPA-rated at 14/16. It only has a 3-speed automatic, no overdrive, hence the crappy highway number. Since I've had it though, going on 5 years, the best I've been able to eke out is 16. And that's running a Dodge Dart air cleaner top, which lets it breathe better.
bump, I'd be willing to bet you that 60 mpg is impossible on public roads in a SMART averaged out over one month's use in spite of whatever extraordinary measures you take. The only rule is it must be public roads (no parking lots, track time, bonneville salt flats, etc.) and you cannot modify the vehicle by taking weight off it or overinflating the tires to 80 lbs.
Good luck, Bump, the Smart web site says "The vehicle is designed to achieve 40 plus mpg under normal driving conditions and current standards." Going from 50==>>60 MPG could be the tough step, judging by the Prius.
If you can average 60mpg or better over a period longer than a week, I will walk to the Subway and take that to work one day. It's about a 4-5 mile hike and I haven't walked more than a mile in....forever.
Unless you get out and push it up hills, then coast down hills, I just can't see that being your average. You're looking at 50% better than that test. People don't drive *that* badly.
Movie voiceover guy: "Can bumpy get 60 mpg from a smart fortwo?"
Shifty: "It can't be done, I tell you. You'll be lucky to get 45."
bumpy: "I once got 30 mpg out of that old Isuzu pickup I used to have. Carburetor and all."
Shifty: "Not gonna happen, my friend."
Movie voiceover guy: He dared to dream the impossible dream. He defied the odds. He took the Shiftright Challenge. Coming in 2008 to a forum near you!"
TWO BIG MEN...ONE SMALL CAR....AND ONLY ONE SURVIVES!
What is the Smart Car REALLY saying?
I think....
What the Smart Car is telling us is that the fuel efficiency of the piston gas engine is getting very close to its physical, thermodynamic limits.
Why do I think this? Two reasons:
1. There were cars getting 40 mpg 50 years ago..."real" cars driving on real highways.
2. Computers made modern engines more efficient but all the power accessories and comfort features REQUIRED to sell a modern car have kept the fuel efficiency just about even with 50 years ago.
3. The Smart Car, either consciously or UN has ackowledged the GAS MILEAGE BARRIER, and decided that the ONLY way to get 60+ mpg is to make a car very small and very light.
If you want a Honda Fit-size vehicle getting 75 mpg on a gasoline engine, it ain't gonna happen.
SMART-size turbo diesel hybrid getting 75 MPG? Maybe, but who wants such a small car even if it got that mileage? Especially if the hybrid Fit diesel got 55.
In the weeks that I drove a Hyundai Accent, I was getting around 35 mpg largely due to its diminutive size.
I have talked to five or six Smart owners last summer and I was told that the mileage was running 45-50 mpg. Most of the miles were on RURAL roads in Illinois and Iowa.
Comments
So overhang isn't the same as unsprung weight, the latter being the weight of the axles, suspension, etc.
Cars designs of the 70s and 80s suffer from both excess overhang and excess unsprung weight. Stylistically some of these cars might appeal, but in engineering they are seem to be far less than ideal.
A subcompact solves both these problems, or gets closer to solving them, by not only eliminating overhang (stubby nose) but using lightweight parts for unsprung weight as well.
RWD cars can also solve these dynamic problems with intelligent design and are doing so. You won't ever see RWD cars with three feet of metal and chrome in front of a extra-heavy beam axle again I don't think.
Well if you get rid of the guardrails you will eventually get rid of the bad drivers.
Ducking and running.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But take heart, traffic deaths are going down at a good clip even while miles driven goes up and car size goes down. Surely the safety features of newer cars has something to do with this.
Exclusive Video and Spy Photos: 2008 Mini Clubman S
****
I know that, which is why I was suggesting a 10-20% boost over stock, which is always within normal specs(given that engineers always give themselves 20-30% leeway in a design).
It's like overclocking a CPU. 10-20% isn't going to do much at all to affect the lifespan and won't need severe mods or anything.
100HP would make for a sweet ride. And it would be great for marketing as well, much like 50mpg is(magic numbers in both cases that get attention/noticed)
Mrshiftright
Visiting Host
60hwy, 40 city......
and people are talking about prices of 17-21K on some small subcompacts ,that might get around 40-41MPG hwy?
No thanks.
You can get a Corolla for some of the 17-21K prices of a subcompact, and get same MPG, similar prices!
Small cars may be fun, but so is living( as in, I'd rather drive a compact, or larger vehicle, than get squashed in an wreck with something the size of a Sebring,
This thread keeps on going, doesn't it!? About 1 year- or more -already!
Anyhow.... heard a lot of other makers are looking at diesels, next gen, and should not cost an arm and leg, either, and get similar or better MPG as the subcompacts and compacts, or hybrids, even!
Hey,anyone old enough here to remember the (Suzuki built) Chevy Sprint, later called Geo Metro?'
I heard it was getting anywhere from mid-40's to around 60 MPG? 5 door car. Rode in one once, in 1989. Not too bad, for the times.
Where are the "Sprints/Metros" of today? That might be the one "tiny" car I'd Perhaps think of buying( and risking my life?) for 50+ MPG, using only a (3 cylinder?) normal gas engine.
Thought I heard the last version sold had a 4 cylinder, but the increase in HP, and 1 extra cylinder(weight, too?) lowered the MPG to 36-40 MPG?
take care/not offense.
So what's the SMART's fatal flaw?
In my opinion, its size. Cars don't have to be that small to be that economical, and 95% American cities are not in the space crush that European cities are, not even close.
That requires SMART to duel strictly on gas mileage, and the new wave of subcompacts are so competent they can easily compete. And they are only going to get better, whereas SMART doesn't have the capital to get better.
Not to be too glum about it, they'll sell a few thousand, like Vespas do. And their owners will enjoy them, as Vespa owners do.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Yea, I remember my Geo Metro (1992 model). Used to get mid 40's in city and 54 on the Hwy, with that 3-cyl 1.0L engine with 5-speed transmission, coasting between 55 and 60 mph. Had 5 doors, and good enough for 2 adults and 2 kids. But the car was too small, IMO. It would start shaking at above 70mph or so, and wouldnt feel very safe.
I think Geo got assimilated by Chevrolet, and after a few years they discontinued all their models, the Metro (Swift clone), Tracker, and Prism (Corolla clone).
In those days (90's) the Corollas had mid-30's for mileage, and they have upped it to the low 40's now. With that kind of mileage, I don't see the need for all these new (and smaller) sub-compacts.
I am looking forward to the 2009 Prius, expecting 100+ mpg. Wishful thinking? We'll see. Best regards, - MS.
Sorry bout that. I threw out that number because that's what I figured a year ago based on gas AND payment AND insurance. I just forgot when typing my message that I needed to break out one part of the number.
Its actually $75 just in gas, though. Ya gotta take the 40 cent price difference of premium and regular into account, too.
But, hey, $75 in gas is still a big deal! ;b
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Heck, back in late 1999, when I went from a 1989 Gran Fury copcar to a 2000 Intrepid, I figured it was saving me about $125-150 per month. And that was back when gas was only about $1.40 per gallon! I was doing an easy 3,000 miles per month back then, though, delivering pizzas. The Gran Fury got about 13 mpg and preferred premium (about 20 cents more than regular) and the only way the Intrepid would drop below 20 mpg would be in cold, nasty winter weather, running on that oxygenated crap.
If I made that same transition nowadays, with $3.00+ gas, I'd save at least $250 per month!
In that kind of driving, I'd realistically get around 30 mpg with something like a Corolla. Back in 1999, with $1.40 gas, that would've saved me an extra ~$70 monthly over the Intrepid. Didn't seem worth it at the time. With today's prices though, it would be more like another $150 per month savings. I think I might be able to tolerate it for that kind of savings!
However, if your only commute is the one-mile drive to the train station, you will never be able to justify the purchase of a new Toyota Prius.
At 3K miles a month, you bet a subcompact makes sense.
As I might have stated before, one should look at one's transition from one vehicle to another in terms of GALLONAGE, not mpg...GALLONAGE takes into account both your starting point (how many mpg your old car got) as well as your miles driven per month.
What I mean is that the gallonage is significantly more impressive if you're going from 12 mpg to 17mpg rather than 38 mpg to 43 mpg.
When I bought my new house I moved 30 or so minutes away from my job. Previously I was less then five minutes away from my job. I would have taken my bike to work if the roads weren't so bad(narrow no shoulder and busy all the time)and I wasn't going up a mountain both ways.
I was driving a Disco that got between 12-14 mpg no matter what but I was only putting five miles a day on it. My new commute was going to be 35 miles a day so I swapped the Disco out for a Forrester that gets around 25 mpg.
One week in the Disco = 2 gallons for commuting
One week in the Forrester = 7 gallons for commuting
Had you kept the Disco, your gallonage for commuting would have been = 13 gallons.
So you "net" 6 gallons per week or about 26 gallons per month or about $84 at today's prices.
Not a big deal, but that's $1,000 a year you won't put into the Disco.
2000 Hyundai Accent- 28.5 gallons (1000 mi / 35 mpg)
2008 smart fortwo- 16.7 gallons (1000 mi / 60 mpg)
Works for me. :shades:
The REAL savings comes less from the fuel economy of your vehicle as it comes from changing your lifestyle to drive fewer miles.
Had a great weekend and drove 4.5 miles instead of the 200+ I had planned.
As for the hybrid technology, going from 38mpg on a gas Civic to 44 on a hybrid just does not get me excited to spend that much more on the new technology.
Shifty's point is you get diminishing returns. Go from 6mpg to 10mpg and you save TONS on fuel. Go from 36 to 40 mpg and there's hardly any savings at all.
Accent isn't even particularly efficient for its class.
I could save a staggering amount of gas versus driving the 9 mpg truck every day, but I don't drive the truck every day. The smart will save me more gas than a Yaris or a Civic or a Prius or another Accent would.
You remember how the Prius was touted at 60 mpg but most people I know are averaging 41-44.
Bit more realistic.
We also have one demo with 1,000 miles on it that is getting right at the EPA average.
I think that's unduly pessimistic for my circumstances. I drive almost all highway miles, coast in neutral on deceleration, never floor the gas pedal, only exceed half the engine's range on the 1-2 shift, etc. Not full-blown hypermiling, but good enough to skunk the EPA ratings regularly. Given the smart has better power- and torque-to-weight ratios, I should be able to drive it with a lighter pedal than the Hyundai.
Do you have any links for those road tests?
60 would be an accomplishment in the Smart, I wish you luck. :shades:
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=116591/pageNumber=1
They averaged only 40 mpg in the SMART, and 0-60 in 15 seconds in hot weather.
"On the trip south to Los Angeles we sometimes averaged better than 50 mpg."
Here's another---same result: 45 mpg. Don't know if that's US or Imperial gallon however....
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=145
plekto, "Article Comments: 2008 Smart Fortwo First Look" #27, 5 Feb 2007 12:51 am
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=145
That's the forfour. Whole different car (rebodied Mitsubishi Colt for the most part).
Back when it was newer, my '85 Silverado (well, it was Granddad's then) could easily get lower 20's on the highway. And it's only EPA-rated at 14/16. It only has a 3-speed automatic, no overdrive, hence the crappy highway number. Since I've had it though, going on 5 years, the best I've been able to eke out is 16. And that's running a Dodge Dart air cleaner top, which lets it breathe better.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Well may the best man win in the SMART MPG CHALLENGE!
shifty, just visiting....
Unless you get out and push it up hills, then coast down hills, I just can't see that being your average. You're looking at 50% better than that test. People don't drive *that* badly.
The
Shiftright
Challenge!
Movie voiceover guy: "Can bumpy get 60 mpg from a smart fortwo?"
Shifty: "It can't be done, I tell you. You'll be lucky to get 45."
bumpy: "I once got 30 mpg out of that old Isuzu pickup I used to have. Carburetor and all."
Shifty: "Not gonna happen, my friend."
Movie voiceover guy: He dared to dream the impossible dream. He defied the odds. He took the Shiftright Challenge. Coming in 2008 to a forum near you!"
What is the Smart Car REALLY saying?
I think....
What the Smart Car is telling us is that the fuel efficiency of the piston gas engine is getting very close to its physical, thermodynamic limits.
Why do I think this?
Two reasons:
1. There were cars getting 40 mpg 50 years ago..."real" cars driving on real highways.
2. Computers made modern engines more efficient but all the power accessories and comfort features REQUIRED to sell a modern car have kept the fuel efficiency just about even with 50 years ago.
3. The Smart Car, either consciously or UN has ackowledged the GAS MILEAGE BARRIER, and decided that the ONLY way to get 60+ mpg is to make a car very small and very light.
If you want a Honda Fit-size vehicle getting 75 mpg on a gasoline engine, it ain't gonna happen.
Turbo diesel/hybrid electric Honda Fit-sized vehicle getting 75++ mpg? Doubtful...but maybe 55 mpg.
SMART-size turbo diesel hybrid getting 75 MPG? Maybe, but who wants such a small car even if it got that mileage? Especially if the hybrid Fit diesel got 55.
I have talked to five or six Smart owners last summer and I was told that the mileage was running 45-50 mpg. Most of the miles were on RURAL roads in Illinois and Iowa.