# Smart cars are looking better all the time.....



## hemlock (Mar 11, 2011)

Those little "Smart Cars" (the ones I kind of laughed at at first) are starting to look better all the time.  Driving into work this morning, fuel was $1.278L ($4.83/G for our friends to the south).  Funny how I've gone from a 1 ton Chevy C30, to an F150, down to a Sonoma, now to an Impala.  Maybe a little Smart car is next.......


----------



## semipro (Mar 11, 2011)

I'm hoping our household fleet soon will consist of my Tacoma Pickup and something like the Nissan Leaf.  The Leaf we'd use for around-town commuting and the truck for everything else.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 11, 2011)

Smart cars get 41mpg but are the size of a suit case.  I'd consider the new Ford Fiesta.  Much more comfy and still gets 40mpg.  I think they're cheaper too.


----------



## Corey (Mar 11, 2011)

Certainly the words "Here we go again" come to mind with respect to oil prices.  Heck, I'm even complaining and we've got a old Honda Insight getting ~ 60+mpg and my car running E85 where the money savings are equivalent to about 40mpg on gas.

As for the Smart Cars, I guess I could see them in the city where size is an issue.  But for carrying only 2 people and virtually no luggage space, they only get ~50 mpg which is about the same as a Toyota Prius, but the Prius can carry up to 4 people plus some luggage.  I think the new Honda Insight is in the same range as the Prius.  I've had our old 2-seat Insight up to ~70mpg on long interstate trips, got almost 90mpg under ideal conditions on the back roads and still easily do 50mpg around town - so it would probably get my vote for a small 2-seater car and it has a hatchback for decent storage, though they are starting to become a little more rare.

Either way, will certainly be interesting days ahead!


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 11, 2011)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> Certainly the words "Here we go again" come to mind with respect to oil prices.  Heck, I'm even complaining and we've got a old Honda Insight getting ~ 60+mpg and my car running E85 where the money savings are equivalent to about 40mpg on gas.
> 
> As for the Smart Cars, I guess I could see them in the city where size is an issue.  But for carrying only 2 people and virtually no luggage space, they only get ~50 mpg which is about the same as a Toyota Prius...



They only get 41mpg according to their website: http://www.smartusa.com/models/pure-coupe/overview.aspx

Like I said, if you're only getting 41mpg, might as well get a slightly larger and much more comfortable car like the Fiesta.

Smart Pure Coupe
MSRP: $12,490
MPG: 41 highway
70 hp/0-60 in 12.8 seconds
Carries 2 people

Ford Fiesta Sedan
MSRP: $13,320
MPG: 40 highway
120hp/0-60 in only 9.5 seconds
Carries 5 people

So why would you consider the Smart, really?  Plus the Ford will have better parts availability/more dealers etc.


----------



## oldspark (Mar 11, 2011)

joecool85 said:
			
		

> Smart cars get 41mpg but are the size of a suit case.  I'd consider the new Ford Fiesta.  Much more comfy and still gets 40mpg.  I think they're cheaper too.


 +1 I have a Honda Fit I can get 40 mpg part of the time and have much more room than a Smart car.


----------



## blades (Mar 11, 2011)

$4k plus gets tacked on by the time they cross the big puddle.( safty crap required here) I remember the first hype about these were supposed to go for about $8k.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 11, 2011)

blades said:
			
		

> $4k plus gets tacked on by the time they cross the big puddle.( safty crap required here) I remember the first hype about these were supposed to go for about $8k.



Yeah.  If they did sell for $8k new, I'd consider something like that (even though they are rediculously small for most folks).  But for the same price as a Fiesta or similar...nah.  Also, I have a hard time justifying driving something that small (even if it was cheaper) when it gets THE SAME MPG as a larger car that can hold 3 more people and have more power/better acceleration.

**edit**
I should note that I was real excited about the Smart Cars before they got here.  The 5spd manual transmission version got 50+ mpg highway and at the time that was unattainable in anything else except the (then new and expensive) hybrids.  But then when they brought them here they put in a sloppy automatic that sucks up most of the fuel savings.


----------



## henkmeuzelaar (Mar 11, 2011)

joecool85 said:
			
		

> *Smart cars get 41mpg but are the size of a suit case. * I'd consider the new Ford Fiesta.  Much more comfy and still gets 40mpg.  I think they're cheaper too.



What I am really looking for is a smart car the size of our F150 pickup-bed. So, if my wife and I both need to go shopping in the nearest city (~ 55 miles away) we can put the smart car in the pickup and split up downtown, I can go home fast with my load of lumber, etc. and she can shop for hours with the smart car before finding her way home later.

If you do the math, the savings are amazing!  On the way to the city the smart car does better than 100 mpg !! (just counting the extra fuel used by the F150). 

Does anyone know if such a pickup-bed-sized car already exists?
Yeah I know that we could simply tow the smart car. However, the road up to our home is quite steep and has too much snow in winter to make that an attractive proposition.

Henk


----------



## kettensÃ¤ge (Mar 11, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfSS0ZXYdo

This will fit in the back of an F150, it will fit in the back of a ranger for that matter.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 11, 2011)

kettensÃ¤ge said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfSS0ZXYdo
> 
> This will fit in the back of an F150, it will fit in the back of a ranger for that matter.



Or you could get her a motorcycle...more storage capacity lol.


----------



## Highbeam (Mar 11, 2011)

PyMS said:
			
		

> joecool85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it is a motorcycle or even a scooter. My dual sport kawasaki KLX250 gets 80 mpg and can run on the freeway or race in the desert. 

The smart cars were never a good idea, the specs have always sucked. Why suffer with such an unsafe, small, and ridiculous looking vehicle and then waste so much fuel moving the thing around only getting 40mpg. Get a nice diesel VW or pretty much any decent sub compact car for better mpg and comfort. 

Anybody that has actually looked at the specs would skip the smart car.


----------



## velvetfoot (Mar 11, 2011)

I put a bunch of miles on a VW Beetle TDI and really liked it.
I have a MINI now and really like that (42 mpg last tank).
I can put golf clubs and carts in the back with the seats folded.
Diesel is wicked expensive here now.


----------



## woodchip (Mar 11, 2011)

With petrol over $9 a gallon here, my next car is likely to be a bicycle...........


----------



## yooperdave (Mar 11, 2011)

about the only thing those smart cars are good for would be the ease to park (for those that have a tuff time of parking).

i did a lot of driving to and from work-
5-speed ford escort best mpg was 44.4 gave car away with 247,000 miles on it. still had the original exhaust. the next owner sold it to a grandpa/grandson for $175 with 265,000-still running strong with no blue.
last car is toyota corolla w/auto. best mpg was 43.6. out west, 70-75 mph with the ac but the difference was the gas was not mixed with corn!

the smart car is rated at 41 mpg. disappointing for such a small vehicle. just looking at it makes you wonder about the safety of any type of collision...even with an animal (deer).

best i ever squeezed out of a 1200 cc harley was 67mpg! just to see how much i could.


----------



## henkmeuzelaar (Mar 11, 2011)

kettensÃ¤ge said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfSS0ZXYdo
> 
> This will fit in the back of an F150, it will fit in the back of a ranger for that matter.



That is hilarious!! Thanks I needed a good laugh!

Do I contact The Smithsonian Institutes or American Pickers for a test drive??

Henk


----------



## henkmeuzelaar (Mar 11, 2011)

joecool85 said:
			
		

> kettensÃ¤ge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the thought! I'm afraid it is too cold here in the Idaho Rocky Mountains. Also there is so much snow and ice in winter that one sees very few motorcycles on the roads then.  Some motorcycle enthusiasts seem to switch over to snowmobiles, which can only be driven in the berms.

Henk


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Mar 11, 2011)

woodchip said:
			
		

> With petrol over $9 a gallon here, my next car is likely to be a bicycle...........




Soooo.... when oil gets to $200/barrel & beyond, as well staying there for a very long time, your looking at $20/gal +, yep bike for sure or just walking.


----------



## henkmeuzelaar (Mar 11, 2011)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> PyMS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As also explained to the previous poster, motor cycles (or scooters for that matter) don't mix very well with the winter weather here in the Idaho Rockies. 

However, when you mentioned your Kawasaki motorcycle I suddenly realized that some ATVs or UTVs can actually be equipped with reasonably protective cabins and then made street-legal.

The two things to worry about with ATVs/UTVs though are the scarily high price and possibly the relatively poor mileage (or am I wrong there?).

Henk


----------



## midwestcoast (Mar 12, 2011)

The OP is in Canada & Smarts sell much better in Canada because the diesel version is sold there (or was, I think new emissions standards may have bumped it out in last few years).  The diesel is more like in the 70-80mpg range based on Euro testing I think. That would be more like 60-70mpg in EPA equivalent.  Also diesel doesn't bring quite as high a premium in CDA as in the U.S. and small cars are just more popular in general in CDA. So Smarts look a lot Smarter over the border.
Writing them off as unsafe isn't backed up by any testing that I've seen. They are built around an F-1 style crash cage and seem to de pretty well in crashes.


----------



## WES999 (Mar 12, 2011)

When I first saw them I look at some reviews and was suppressed that they did not get that good gas mileage for the size,  and they need to use PREMIUM grade fuel.


----------



## begreen (Mar 12, 2011)

Passenger room is one thing I like about the Prius. It can seat 5 comfortably without making the rear seat passengers eat their knees. At 45-50mpg, it's still respectable, but doesn't hold a candle to the average mileage that folks in Europe are able to buy. 60-70mpg in a 4-5 passenger, gas car there is not uncommon. Add another 10-20mpg if it's diesel. We are pretty far behind in this area. 

Examples: The Citroen C3 gas version gets about 62mpg. The VW Polo 1.6TDI gets a whopping 85.5!


----------



## hemlock (Mar 12, 2011)

midwestcoast said:
			
		

> The OP is in Canada & Smarts sell much better in Canada because the diesel version is sold there (or was, I think new emissions standards may have bumped it out in last few years).  The diesel is more like in the 70-80mpg range based on Euro testing I think. That would be more like 60-70mpg in EPA equivalent.  Also diesel doesn't bring quite as high a premium in CDA as in the U.S. and small cars are just more popular in general in CDA. So Smarts look a lot Smarter over the border.
> Writing them off as unsafe isn't backed up by any testing that I've seen. They are built around an F-1 style crash cage and seem to de pretty well in crashes.



The ones up here are 3 cylinder diesels that are supposed to avergae about 65 mpg (that explains why the numbers some were posting here were not making much sense to me).  I was not aware that they even came with gasoline engines.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 14, 2011)

hemlock said:
			
		

> The ones up here are 3 cylinder diesels that are supposed to avergae about 65 mpg (that explains why the numbers some were posting here were not making much sense to me).  I was not aware that they even came with gasoline engines.



Yeah, here in the states it is the only way they come.  Do you guys get a manual transmission or the cruddy semi auto that (apparently) miss-shifts a lot?


----------



## hemlock (Mar 14, 2011)

joecool85 said:
			
		

> hemlock said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't hold me to this (I'm not 100% sure), but I think you can get either transmission.


----------



## Corey (Mar 14, 2011)

The things to consider with European diesel cars - 

They measure mileage with imperial gallons, while we use US gallons.  That is a 20% penalty right off the top.

European crash standards usually aren't up to US ones, so they get a lighter car.  With 60 million people in a land area the size of Oregon, most everything is 'in town' driving.  A US version of the same car would have a fuel penalty associated with the weight of extra safety features.  We want to survive an 80 mph interstate crash!

The last diesel price I saw around here was ~15% more than gasoline, so again, a cost penalty.

So figure 20% 'mpg' conversion penalty, ~10% weight penalty and 15% cost of diesel penalty, and suddenly that 60 mpg European diesel is roughly equivalent to a ~35 mpg American gasoline car.


----------



## hemlock (Mar 14, 2011)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> The things to consider with European diesel cars -
> 
> They measure mileage with imperial gallons, while we use US gallons.  That is a 20% penalty right off the top.
> 
> ...



I kind of assumed they would convert Imperial gallons for US when they post the MPG, otherwise it would be a sort of false advertising.  It is something to think of however.
As for safety - I've driven on a few "M" series highways over there, and they are not for the faint of heart.  They make our expressways look pretty tame, depending upon which country you are in.  I remember driving into Berlin in a Fiat with the needle buried at around 180km/h, and getting passed like we were standing still.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 15, 2011)

hemlock said:
			
		

> I kind of assumed they would convert Imperial gallons for US when they post the MPG, otherwise it would be a sort of false advertising.  It is something to think of however.
> As for safety - I've driven on a few "M" series highways over there, and they are not for the faint of heart.  They make our expressways look pretty tame, depending upon which country you are in.  I remember driving into Berlin in a Fiat with the needle buried at around 180km/h, and getting passed like we were standing still.



When companies advertise their mpg here in the US they do convert their numbers to US gallons.  People online, however, may not.  So when folks say "such and such a car in Europe gets 70mpg" it is true, but it is imperial gallons.  It would be more like 58mpg here in the US.  Still impressive and far better than what we get here, but not as impressive as the original thought of 70mpg.


----------



## kettensÃ¤ge (Mar 15, 2011)

Went to Italy twice in the past 2 years for work. Took a group of people with me to qualify a new machine my company was buying. Rented a Fiat Ducato, Basically a large 9 passenger van, but very boxy. Had a 2.5L Iveco 4 cyl diesel and a 6 speed. It averaged 25 MPG on the Autostrada at 140 KMH (85MPH) carrying 8 passengers. It was not small.
And Bio deisel was available at every pump.

It really made me think about the european approach. 85% of the cars over there are tiny, diesel powered, and maunual trans equipped. I would be shocked that one of those isn't in the mid 50's by our standard of measurement.
But the air quality is a different story.



http://c1.gas2.org/files/2010/12/fiat-ducato-2.jpg


----------



## kettensÃ¤ge (Mar 15, 2011)

PyMS said:
			
		

> kettensÃ¤ge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_P50

Reproductions are currently being produced and available for purchase.


----------



## begreen (Mar 15, 2011)

Also here, together with honorable mention to other small cars:

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/58547/


----------



## pyper (Mar 15, 2011)

kettensÃ¤ge said:
			
		

> Went to Italy twice in the past 2 years for work. Took a group of people with me to qualify a new machine my company was buying. Rented a Fiat Ducato, Basically a large 9 passenger van, but very boxy. Had a 2.5L Iveco 4 cyl diesel and a 6 speed. It averaged 25 MPG on the Autostrada at 140 KMH (85MPH) carrying 8 passengers. It was not small.



My friend says his Dodge Sprinter 3500 (24' long, tall enough to walk inside) pulling a trailer full of equipment averages 25 mpg. The school bus drivers I've talked to report similar results. And my in-laws used to get 17 mpg pulling a 35' fifth wheel trailer (talk about wind resistance!) with an F250 diesel. 

Diesel engines are cool. But there are reasons why they aren't more popular here.


----------



## 4acrefarm (Mar 18, 2011)

For slightly more money than a "stupid" car,  you ciuld get a Honda Gold Wing. They will get 50 mpg on regular gas , have more storage space, and can pull a trailer. You can buy a 400+ horespower Corvett and get 30 mpg, Why can't small cars get 50+mpg?


----------



## begreen (Mar 18, 2011)

They can, a lot more. Stop by the Chevy Volt forums and see what is being reported now that folks are starting to rack up some miles on them.


----------



## woodchip (Mar 18, 2011)

4acrefarm said:
			
		

> Why can't small cars get 50+mpg?



They used to. Our Mini did 65mpg, but the new Mini's have aircon, electric windows, and what seems like half a ton of crash zones all welded on. 
The newest VW Polo is about 400 pounds heavier than the same model in the 1980's, because all the engine improvements have been offset by all the extra stuff the manufacturers bolt on to make the new models different to the old ones. 

Can you imagine what could happen if someone dared to make a new car with minimum weight but with an incredibly efficient engine. 

My aim would be 100mpg. Then could we tell all the despots in the oil producing countries where they could shove their black stuff........


----------



## hemlock (Mar 18, 2011)

4acrefarm said:
			
		

> For slightly more money than a "stupid" car,  you ciuld get a Honda Gold Wing. They will get 50 mpg on regular gas , have more storage space, and can pull a trailer. You can buy a 400+ horespower Corvett and get 30 mpg, Why can't small cars get 50+mpg?



Wouldn't want to drive a Goldwing when it's -30C (-22F) outside with a strong northest wind.


----------



## yooperdave (Mar 18, 2011)

a goldwing???  sooner or later, someone you know is going to recognize you on it.......


----------



## begreen (Mar 18, 2011)

My cycle riding days are past. All the attributes mentioned for the Goldwing can be met or exceeded by a Prius, and with 5 people aboard.


----------



## Highbeam (Mar 19, 2011)

pyper said:
			
		

> And my in-laws used to get 17 mpg pulling a 35' fifth wheel trailer (talk about wind resistance!) with an F250 diesel.



Your in-laws were either lying to you or didn't know what they were talking about. Ford diesel trucks, running empty, barely get 17mpg in good conditions. I own one and run low teens with daily driving in the winter. Then again, I know what a gallon is, a mile is, and know how to accurately measure both and divide.


----------



## woodsman23 (Mar 19, 2011)

I have a 036 ford 500, large car awd and 30mpg a diamond in the ruff, check em out


----------



## begreen (Mar 19, 2011)

This car?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/22839.shtml


----------



## Billy123 (Mar 21, 2011)

Back in the 80's, my Chevy Sprint got mpg in the 40's with the a/c on high. (3 cyl 1.0L)The thing was great in snow. New tires were $29 each.(145-12)

Would love to have that in a diesel.

By the way, diesel was always cheaper that gasoline. Why did that change?


----------



## begreen (Mar 21, 2011)

Part of the reason is supply and demand. The demand for diesel is high outside of the US. The supply of refineries in some countries is quite weak. Our refinery diesel can get a higher price sold outside of the US than being sold here.


----------



## nate379 (Mar 21, 2011)

My Jetta has no trouble getting 40-45mpg. AND... it looks "normal" unlike almost all the hybreds and "fuel saver" cars.


----------



## kettensÃ¤ge (Mar 21, 2011)

pyper said:
			
		

> kettensÃ¤ge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Another reason is air quality. The air in Italy is not that good, you can smell diesel just about everywhere, it is not horrible like at a bus station or truck stop but it is always in the background.
I also don't belive the 17 MPG with an F250, especially if it's a dually.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 21, 2011)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> pyper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dunno, I have a buddy with an F-250 powerstroke, 5spd 4x4 that regularly gets mid to upper 20s unloaded on the interstate.


----------



## begreen (Mar 21, 2011)

kettensÃ¤ge said:
			
		

> pyper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Was this many years ago? I was in several parts of Italy and Sicily a couple years ago. This was from Firenze and Venezia and southward. We were in their cities and on the highways and autostrada. The air was never heavy with diesel. Actually in Rome it seemed much better than it was on our last visit about 20 years ago. Our car, a Mini Crossman, was diesel too, though you wouldn't have known it from the exhaust. Modern diesels in Europe burn quite cleanly.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 21, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Our car, a Mini Crossman, was diesel too, though you wouldn't have known it from the exhaust. Modern diesels in Europe burn quite cleanly.



From what I have read this is due to the ultra low sulfur content in their diesel.


----------



## kettensÃ¤ge (Mar 21, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> kettensÃ¤ge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Was in 2008 and 2010. Venice, Verona, Mantova, and Milan off of the A4. Northeast part of Italy, you could see the alps depending on the humidity. The air may have been more stagnant in that area. I wouldn't say the air was heavy with fumes but it was present. If diesel power was more available in everyday cars here like it is there I would buy one in an instant. Most prevalent US car seemed to be Chrysler products and all of them were CRD's. Jeeps, Dodge Magnums, Voyager minivans, etc. 

They do have the cleanest rivers I have ever seen. Nothing like it here except maybe Alaska.


----------



## Highbeam (Mar 21, 2011)

joecool85 said:
			
		

> I dunno, I have a buddy with an F-250 powerstroke, 5spd 4x4 that regularly gets mid to upper 20s unloaded on the interstate.



Same thing, BS. Your friend is either lying or is not doing the math right. His 5 speed is an old truck, pre97, and doesn't have a mpg computer so he is likely using the fuel gauge as his gallons and his odo for miles. Could have non-OEM tire size too. People do some strange things to justify buying a diesel. The mpg isn't that great on full size diesel trucks. I own one, I am being honest. 

Since 2007 the US has been forced to use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel. This is supposed to burn cleaner and allow more advanced emissions equipment. The refineries used this as an excuse to push the cost of diesel way above regular gasoline where it will stay. This ULSD always gets worse mpg, about 2 mpg less, from a diesel engine too. All of this seems to make diesel engines worse deal than the early 2000s, the golden years for diesel. Modern, post 2007, diesels are now plugged up with some very lousy emissions control devices that are very expensive to buy and expensive to maintain. 

A guy may be inclined to think that the EPA is doing this to prevent us from using diesel. Keep gasoline consumption high for some political reason.


----------



## woodsman23 (Mar 21, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> This car?
> 
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/22839.shtml



its an 06 awd  and yes it gets an avg of 26mpg and have over 31 mpg on the highway. see pics below... car is the most comfy i have ever driven...


----------



## begreen (Mar 22, 2011)

The onboard computer can be fooled by a stretch of deacceleration. I can get our Prius to report 99mpg pretty easily.  More important is the actual math based on the refill gallons of the tank divided into the miles driven.


----------



## velvetfoot (Mar 22, 2011)

Last tank, my MINI's computer read 46 mpg for the tak but it actually got 43 mpg.  It's usually optimistic.


----------



## Exmasonite (Mar 22, 2011)

I have a VW jetta sportwagen TDI and absolutely love it.  Turned in my old '98 jeep cherokee (RIP, still miss that car) as a "cash for clunkers" so i got $4500 for a vehicle with a blue book of $900.  

Clean diesel tax credit was nice... not sure if it's still going.  

I avg about 38-39 MPG/tank.  Mainly hwy but the hills of NW CT hurt a little bit.  I was more like 41-42 mpg/tank when i lived in michigan.  

Diesel price:  yes, it runs about 20-25 cents more than 87 octane which is a bit ridiculous.  Gov't needs to drop some of the excess taxes on diesel but that's neither here nor there.  The 7% difference in price is nothing compared to the mileage advantage.  

Diesel longevity:  Treated well, i'm hoping to get 250-300K minimum out of this vehicle.  Not sure the same can be said of equivalent gas engines.  Oil changes every 10K miles saves on maintenance, too.  

Lastly, nice to have some extra "oomph" and power when pushing the pedal down.  Test drove the toyota yaris and that little 105 HP four banger STRUGGLED to accelerate on the hwy on ramp.  

Still can't believe american automakers haven't embraced clean diesel... Ford would make a killing by dropping it in the Ranger, Escape, fusion, and focus.  I am also interested to see if anybody can pull off a diesel/electric hybrid.  I don't do much/any city driving so the electric vehicles have never appealed to me but interesting if a diesel prius or fusion hybrid would offer even better mileage over a gas version.


----------



## nate379 (Mar 22, 2011)

Yeah same results here.  My 2500 Ram gets around 15-16mpg.  Though for a while I drove a Ram 1500 with the 5.9L and I only got 12-13mpg with that.  That mileage is what I get towing a fairly heavy trailer in my truck.




			
				Highbeam said:
			
		

> joecool85 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jotul8e2 (Mar 22, 2011)

"Upper 20s" for an F250 stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.  My company has two of the last F250 7.3 diesels, one standard cab and one extended cab, (both 2wd) and neither will get quite 20 mpg running empty at highway speeds.  I have an 04 Chevy K2500 4X4 and have frequently gotten just over 20 mpg on the highway, running unloaded.  I think that is amazing for a four wheel drive four door 3/4 ton truck that weighs just short of 7,000 lbs.

My uncle drives a 2000 model F350 crew cab 4X4 diesel (not a dually) that gets almost 25 mpg unloaded on the highway, but he has a performance chip tuned to improve mileage and, more importantly, a Gear Vendors overdrive.  At 70 mph he is only turning 1400 rpm or so.

The important thing about diesels is that efficiency drops dramatically once you pass the peak of the torque curve.  So, I can get 21 mpg at 60 mph (1800 rpm) on my Chevy diesel, but at 70 mph (2100 rpm) I get maybe 18.5.  At 75 I drop to perhaps 17 mpg.  Also, city driving is really bad on mileage - the fuel burned to get that heavy truck up to speed is just dreadful.

On the other hand, where they really shine is in hauling loads.  We use our trucks to haul what are essentially 34' fifth wheel trailers - much like a travel trailer.  By keeping the speeds reasonable we can get 10 to 12 mpg (prevailing winds are a major factor), where a gas engine truck would get not more than 7 mpg.  And before anyone notes that is only "three to five more miles per gallon" do the math:  that is 43 to 71 percent less fuel burned.

I would really love to see something like a 2 liter turbo diesel in a Chevy Equinox.

By the way, US low sulfur diesel is considerably lower in sulfur than European lsd.


----------



## woodsman23 (Mar 22, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> The onboard computer can be fooled by a stretch of deacceleration. I can get our Prius to report 99mpg pretty easily.  More important is the actual math based on the refill gallons of the tank divided into the miles driven.



496 miles driven, 17 gallons to fill up =29.176
490 miles driven, 16.95 gallons to fill up= 28.908
499 miles driven 17.23 gallons to fill up= 28.960

95% highway miles at 70-75

I'd say for a 4 thousand pound car thats awd is fairly impressive... yey FORD...

enjoy


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 23, 2011)

woodsman23 said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right now Ford is pretty much on the cutting edge of efficiency.  The Fiesta and Focus both get 40mpg, the Hybrid Escape and Hybrid Fusion get best in class 34 and 41mpg respectively.  The Focus Electric is suppose to be super efficient and coming out later this year.  The only thing they are missing compared to the competition is a 50+ mpg small-car hybrid.  I'd like to see a hybrid Fiesta or Focus that gets 55-60 mpg.  What I really want to see though nobody has right now in the US and that is a small pickup that gets mid 30's for mpg.  Europe has diesel Rangers that get that mpg and Mexico has gasoline Ford Couriers that hit that mark.  Bring one of those here.  I'll buy one.


----------



## Highbeam (Mar 23, 2011)

You all do realize that nearly all of our favorite small economy cars and trucks are available with diesel engines already, right? In other countries. So the question is not, why can't Ford (or chevy or toyota) do it, but why aren't they sold in the US.


----------



## begreen (Mar 23, 2011)

joecool85 said:
			
		

> woodsman23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Our '94 Ranger 4 cyl. gets about 33 on the highway. It isn't fast, but it's frugal.


----------



## Jags (Mar 23, 2011)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> You all do realize that nearly all of our favorite small economy cars and trucks are available with diesel engines already, right? In other countries. So the question is not, why can't Ford (or chevy or toyota) do it, but why aren't they sold in the US.



Bingo - I have been asking myself that same question for quite a few years.

Also, I am a fan of Jeep Grand Cherokees.  They just so happen to have the qualities that I use frequently (proper tow capacity, seating for 4 adults, 4 or all wheel drive, interior storage, etc).  When Mercedes was part of the deal, they put a diesel in the grand Cherokee - they screwed up.  That sucker was tuned to rock and roll with hemi performance and got low 20's for mileage.  They would have had a real peach if they would have had a detuned version with the performance of my small v8 (very capable little engine) and hit mid or high 20's with it.  But no - everybody has to have a race jeep???  Stupid.

If they would come out with a small fuel efficient diesel that still had towing torque to fit into the Jeep or even the dakota, they would sell a pile of them.  Not everybody has a need to tow 10,000 pounds.

Side note: you wanna see a race jeep, check out the Grand Cherokee SRT8 - holy crap.

Hehe - did a little looking: 2010 Chrysler Grand Voyager van - 2.8 liter common rail diesel - gets 30 MPG - not available in US.  Go figure.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 24, 2011)

The perception still exists in this country that diesels are rattly, smelly, dirty etc. The domestic OEMs seem unwilling to campaign for clean diesel in any significant way, despite great success with diesel light trucks.

VW (and to a lesser extent MB) has demonstrated that modern diesel car tech is clean, efficient and hardly perceptible to the driver. In such, they have developed a staunch following. But for cars at least, it still appears that domestic OEMs cling to the market model that Americans will only buy large, high power, gasoline vehicles and moreover that these cars are integral to the sense of American identity. The new Volt is obviously counter to that model, but electric will only power small cars for some time yet. 

So if high power gasoline is still acceptable, despite the stigma of fossil fuel, it is unfortunate that competent European type diesel is likely to only be a niche player.


----------



## GaryGary (Mar 24, 2011)

joecool85 said:
			
		

> woodsman23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Agree that Ford is really making progress on fuel economy -- I like to think its because my old boss from Boeing now runs the company  

But, its interesting to look at the numbers from www.fueleconomy.gov

Prius:  50 mpg combined, midsize, 94 cf passenger compartment, 22 cf luggage space for total of 116 cf inside space.

Fusion: 25 mpg combined, midsize, 100 cf of passenger compartment, 16 cf luggage space for total of 116 cf inside space.

So, about the same size and the Prius uses half the fuel -- seems like Ford still has some room for improvement.

Gary


----------



## kettensÃ¤ge (Mar 24, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> Highbeam said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Totally agree. I'd buy a 4.0L turbo diesel Dakota in a minute. I have a Hemi 300C. Drops to 4 cyl on the highway, I can squeeze 25MPG out of it and pass just about anything. 4100 lbs.
The wife's 98 Subie forrester, 2.5L non turbo 160 hp. will almost match it in mileage. Not even close in performance.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 24, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Our '94 Ranger 4 cyl. gets about 33 on the highway. It isn't fast, but it's frugal.



Is it 4wd?  If not it doesn't work for me.  Also, Ford hasn't made a 4cyl 4wd for 10+ years - a real mistake in my eyes.  Now you can only get the 4.0 V6 automatic for a 4wd.  How stupid!


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 24, 2011)

GaryGary said:
			
		

> Agree that Ford is really making progress on fuel economy -- I like to think its because my old boss from Boeing now runs the company
> 
> But, its interesting to look at the numbers from www.fueleconomy.gov
> 
> ...



You must have looked at the non hybrid version, which isn't fair because the Prius is a hybrid.  According to the website you listed, the Fusion Hybrid gets 39mpg combined.  The Prius still wins (albeit with a much smaller margin than you said) as far as carrying capacity vs MPG, but it loses on "creature comforts."  The Fusion is really a posh little car.


----------



## begreen (Mar 24, 2011)

10 MPG is 25% better average gas mileage. The Prius is pretty tricked out, though they are careful to not pile on accessories that add a lot of weight. What extra creature comforts does the Fusion have and are they weight adders? Also, the Fusion Hybrid's base price is $6K higher than the Prius and has a dash board that looks like a game arcade. But it does have better rear visibility.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 24, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> 10 MPG is 25% better average gas mileage. The Prius is pretty tricked out, though they are careful to not pile on accessories that add a lot of weight. What extra creature comforts does the Fusion have and are they weight adders? Also, the Fusion Hybrid's base price is $6K higher than the Prius and has a dash board that looks like a game arcade. But it does have better rear visibility.



This I'm not entirely sure on as I've not ever driven either car - I was going by what I've read online etc.  The Fusion is a physically larger car as far as wheelbase etc, and from what I've read it drives quite well, sporty even.  I've not ever head reviews about the Prius calling it sporty in any way.  

Regardless I think it's great that there are a handful of companies now embracing a higher mpg stance than what they use to.


----------



## GaryGary (Mar 24, 2011)

joecool85 said:
			
		

> GaryGary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Missed the hybrid -- should have known better since we test drove one a while back.
We just traded in our old Prius on a new Prius -- its seems pretty posh to me -- heated leather seats, auto dimming rear view mirror, big screen navigation ...
Gary


----------



## SPhill (Mar 25, 2011)

The (hybrid) Fusion, Prius match-up looks like a pretty good one. I'll be advising my mother-in-law soon on another car. This would be her opportunity to greatly improve her fuel economy (Buick Lucerne). These two are priced competitively with most nice family sedans. I am leaning toward the Fusion for the driving dynamics mentioned above and also she will appreciate the lower "green" profile of the Fusion styling.

It will be fun to test drive and evaluate them both.

ps, just to stay with the topic: Is there anyone out there who agrees with the title of this thread??


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 25, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> The (hybrid) Fusion, Prius match-up looks like a pretty good one. I'll be advising my mother-in-law soon on another car. This would be her opportunity to greatly improve her fuel economy (Buick Lucerne). These two are priced competitively with most nice family sedans. I am leaning toward the Fusion for the driving dynamics mentioned above and also she will appreciate the lower "green" profile of the Fusion styling.
> 
> It will be fun to test drive and evaluate them both.
> 
> ps, just to stay with the topic: Is there anyone out there who agrees with the title of this thread??



Keep us posted as to what your mother in law gets.

As to the question about the thread title, I doubt it.  For a whole bunch of reasons, smart cars aren't that smart.  At least not in the US.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 25, 2011)

Yeah, but Smarts are very cost-efficient. After they are crushed by an F-150, they will fit neatly in a standard burial plot -- thereby eliminating the expense of one of those highly polished brass and oak boxes.


----------



## Exmasonite (Mar 25, 2011)

From what I've been reading, Subaru may be the next contender in the North American clean diesel market and they'll be making a strong play.  Give me an outback or forester with AWD and 35-40 MPG... i'd seriously consider trading in my VW TDI jetta wagon for that.  They have a diesel boxer engine internationally, just need to get it cleaned up enough for US emissions.  I think it'll be the first real diesel challenge to VW/Audi.


----------



## woodsman23 (Mar 25, 2011)

Driving a Prius is okay as long as noone sees you, kind of like the mo-ped thing its fun to do as long as no one sees you and then there is the fat chick one well you know the story.......................


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 25, 2011)

Pretty poor MPG for a phone booth on wheels,you could do much better with a VW jetta with a TDI diesel , my sister claims 55MPG on a trip with hers.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 26, 2011)

Exmasonite said:
			
		

> From what I've been reading, Subaru may be the next contender in the North American clean diesel market and they'll be making a strong play.  Give me an outback or forester with AWD and 35-40 MPG... i'd seriously consider trading in my VW TDI jetta wagon for that.  They have a diesel boxer engine internationally, just need to get it cleaned up enough for US emissions.  I think it'll be the first real diesel challenge to VW/Audi.



I would really like to see Subaru expand the clean diesel options. It is mature, immediately available technology. 

With that, the market could settle into High efficiency gasoline, Clean diesel and Gasoline/electric hybrid as primary options. Plug-in electric (with range and charge time issues) will probably occupy a niche for at least another decade as the infrastructure is built and public acceptance grows.


----------



## joecool85 (Mar 26, 2011)

samdog1 said:
			
		

> I would really like to see Subaru expand the clean diesel options. It is mature, immediately available technology.
> 
> With that, the market could settle into High efficiency gasoline, Clean diesel and Gasoline/electric hybrid as primary options. Plug-in electric (with range and charge time issues) will probably occupy a niche for at least another decade as the infrastructure is built and public acceptance grows.



I would love to see what you are describing.  I bet we cut easily cut fuel consumption by 1/3 to 1/2 in the US doing that alone.


----------



## begreen (Mar 26, 2011)

Loved my Subaru and wouldn't mind owning another one with much better mileage. For future options, don't forget hydrogen. It would be fun to try out the Honda FCX for a bit. 

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/


----------



## Billy123 (Mar 26, 2011)

I drive a mini-van and I get around 19 mpg tops/ Hwy. I would the diesel version they sell in Europe. It gets around 10 more mpg than I do.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 27, 2011)

Billy123 said:
			
		

> I drive a mini-van and I get around 19 mpg tops/ Hwy. I would the diesel version they sell in Europe. It gets around 10 more mpg than I do.



Minivans may not be"cool" but they are everywhere and they are practical. Id like to see a hybrid or a plug-in Minivan as well as a light duty pickup plug-in. Would save a load of gas.


----------



## Highbeam (Mar 28, 2011)

Billy123 said:
			
		

> I drive a mini-van and I get around 19 mpg tops/ Hwy. I would the diesel version they sell in Europe. It gets around 10 more mpg than I do.



May be ONLY 10 mpg but that's a 50% improvement. Huge deal! The EPA should be ashamed for not allowing these machines in the country. You have to wonder why, it's not emissions really since there have been diesel pickups since the early 90s.


----------



## Jags (Mar 28, 2011)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> Billy123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it has to do with the way we test for emissions.  We test emissions per gallon consumed and I believe that most of the rest of the world tests for emissions per mile.

So if your SUV can pass the per gallon test and use 3 times the fuel it still passes, while a small diesel may emit slightly more per gallon, but use 1/3 the fuel....hmmmm....makes a person wonder doesn't it.


----------



## SPhill (Mar 29, 2011)

Allowing for the different measuring systems, it appears all countries use grams/distance for personal vehicles and grams/power/hour for commercial trucks. 

Europe, Asia and most of South America tests light/medium duty vehicles for grams of pollutants per kilometer: 

_



			All emissions are expressed in g/km.
		
Click to expand...

_
The United States EPA tests light/medium duty vehicles for grams of pollutants per mile:

_



			The same emission limits apply to all vehicles regardless of the fuel they use. That is, vehicles fueled by gasoline, diesel, or alternative fuels all must meet the same standards. Since light-duty emission standards are expressed in grams of pollutants per mile, vehicles with large engines (such light trucks or SUVs) have to use more advanced emission control technologies than vehicles with smaller engines in order to meet the standards.
		
Click to expand...

_
For heavy duty trucks Europe tests grams per kiloWatt hour:

_



			EU Emission Standards for HD Diesel Engines, g/kWh (smoke in m-1)
		
Click to expand...

_
For heavy duty trucks the EPA tests grams per brake horsepower per hour:

_



			EPA Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, g/bhpÂ·hr
		
Click to expand...

_
The California Air Resources Board appears to test grams per mile in the light/medium categories they test. Quite a few states adopt sections of the CARB.

China would appear to be the hold-out, with a mish-mash of adopted and modified European regs.

Source: Summary of Worldwide Emissions Standards  (I just scanned it, I may have missed something.)


----------

