Halifax to Vancouver in a Smart Car
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 07. 9.07
6,158 kilometres or 3826 miles, from coast to coast, on only 337 litres or 89 gallons of gas in nine days. John Leblanc and his 14 year old daughter Olivia drove it across prairies and over the Rockies. "I’d be lying if I didn’t tell you I was a little anxious about how the Smart’s minimal power was going to handle crossing the Rockies’ higher elevations." and he was originally nervous about the big trucks and SUV's on the highways,"but instead of counting on the vehicle's crashworthiness to get us to the West Coast in one piece, I drove the Smart like I drive any car that's not mine: look as far down the road as possible and give everyone else lots of room." He concludes "Yet, other than crossing steep mountain passes, or keeping up with the reality of fast highway traffic, the 40 hp Smart never felt overwhelmed. For Olivia and myself, and a week's worth of luggage, the ForTwo was more than capable as a way to travel the country economically."
This just demonstrates the silliness of the American car manufacturers and their Washington poodles who can't hit an average of 35 MPG in twelve years. Imagine:
89 gallons of gas to cross the entire country and you can do that right now in comfort and style. ::Wheels
...and you can fly it back home in checked baggage !
As part of my personal effort to despoil nature for spite, I spent this past weekend driving my SUV, peeing in lakes, spraying DEET, eating steaks, fishing for sport and bloodlust, and clogging up streams with bottlerockets. My animal nature impels me to destroy. Whadyagonnado.
That calculates to 43 mpg. Why is that praiseworthy?
This is actually very good mileage for a new automobile. Owing to new safety features (roll cages, air bags, antilock brakes, etc) cars have a lot more built-in weight than they used to. I remember the old Honda Civics getting 50 mpg. That's no longer possible.
afraid to cross the canadian rockies super highways in a smart car? real tough explorer types these people!
43 mpg..big freking deal!!
does this mean anything? No? try again, maybe solar?
My 7 year old Daihatsu Cuore uses less fuel than this car.
Try the diesel version of the smart, it gets you up to 80 mpg.
And a car this size and weight has no problem at all going up mountain roads anyway.
Yeah, 42mpg isn't very impressive for a smart car, over long distances you should be getting around 60 mpg and if you have long straights 80 mpg isn't so difficult. The trick is to stick to around 50 mph
I never understood the appeal of the Smart car. 43 MPG is rather poor for a car that size (meaning: TINY). Is it just because the car is very small that makes people automatically assume it must be efficient?
We have a 2003 VW Jetta Wagon TDI which regularly gets around 45 MPG in mixed city/highway driving and around 50 MPG on the highway. We drove it around the Smoky Mountains with the A/C on and still got 47 MPG. It's MUCH larger and heavier, carries a lot more, and - most important to us - has excellent crash test results.
43 MPG in a Smart car is wholly unremarkable. Try the same exercise in a VW Lupo 3L (78 MPG) if you want noteworthy efficiency.
afraid to cross the canadian rockies super highways in a smart car? real tough explorer types these people!
43 mpg..big freking deal!!
does this mean anything? No? try again, maybe solar?
When considering the total impact I think you have to also consider the resources (and the energy needed to create them) that DIDN'T go into the SMART car.
You could probably build four SMART cars with the materials needed for ONE Lincoln Navigator.
Mileage isn't the sole criteria of efficiency.
Also, combustion may not be so efficient at high atltitudes. That might have brought down the overall average.
i'd rather do the trip in my prius...no "minimal power" concerns...no nervousness about big trucks and SUVs on the highways (no more than usual, anyway)...more room...more comfort...more style...and lower emissions...heck, i could take four of my friends and all of our luggage with us (not that i would want to go cross-country with five people in the car - ha!)...anyway...try harder, SMART!
...oh, and also (continuing my prius rant), my prius does all this while getting more than the 43 miles per gallon averaged by the so-called "smart" car...:)
As much as i like the idea.the roads in my area rattle my teeth currently.My vehicle's saving grace are off road suspension seats and five point racing harness.
How did it perform in bumpy conditions and rough roads?
Is there an all wheel drive or four wheel drive option?
What about traction?Limited slip or locker?
As you can probably tell i live in the sticks.
I have to agree with everyone. 43 mpg isnt all that great for a small car such as that one.
"I remember the old Honda Civics getting 50 mpg. That's no longer possible."
It still is possible in alot of states(I know a CVCC engine can meet emission standards in MO). The old hondas with the CVCC engine got those kind of mpg figures without a cat converter and still met emission standards. With modern technology Im sure the same technology back then could be used to meet todays emission standards.
Well, Smart Cars ARE Good Things (tm). BUT... We have a 2000 VW Golf TDI that gives us about 52mpg. That's an average over about 120K miles. It has NONE of the drawbacks of the Smart Car. Plenty of power. Room for four. In our Golf, we could have made the cross Canada trip on about 74 gallons of diesel. Are diesel Smart Cars available in America?
Yuck. Not only is the car hideously ugly, but it only gets 42 MPG? Poor, at best.
It only takes me ~89 gallons to cross the USA in a large full-size car. So, why would I want an ungly care that is physically too small for me to actually get into, much less be comfortable in?
Sounds good...but I would rather be in the SUV in a collision!!!
Eric
"...you can do that right now in comfort and style."
LMAO
Just want to comment about the SUV being ridiculous part. A smart car is only useful if there are only two people going on the trip. Any more than that and a smart car is useless. Seeing as how the average family is 4 or 5 people, smart cars aren't a realistic option.
I was just reading a 1965 national geographic last night and noticed an ad for a MG sedan- touting its 35 MPG efficiency. that was in 1965!!!
Ahem,
Halfax to Vancouver, contrary to popular belief, is not "cross-Canada" or "coast-to-coast". The entire province of Newfoundland has been omitted (and would have added at least 12 hours of challenging conditions for a SmartCar). Yes folks, the tales of a province further east than Nova Scotia are true! I was born and raised there and I have seen it with my own eyes!
sounds to me like more of a anti-suv anti-american jab. If all they cared about was the efficiency of the vehicle the last paragraph would not have been added.
But then again that is all the internet is now is "everyone > america"
like many people these days, a lot of you are confusing two different issues when it comes to cars and the environment. fuel economy is NOT the only measure of impact, and probably not even the best measure. a more critical measure is EMISSIONS. the prius and the smart car, even if they do not get extremely high fuel economy, will have significantly less emissions per litre burned than cars like volkswagen diesels that get similar or even better fuel economy. so yes, you are still much much better off taking a prius or a smart car across the country even if the diesel gets better fuel economy. of course, this all ignores the difference in overall energy use associated with building, using and disposing of these cars, but that only makes things a lot more complicated.
I was able to average 43mpg in a 2002 toyota echo a few years ago on a road trip. Mind you, the echo has more than twice the hp, much more space, and costs about the same.
I think it's cool that you gave it a go but it doesn't sound that impressive MPG in return for shutting yourself in a tiny little box for 9 days or whatever...
I drive a 1999 diesel VW Jetta. Its sticker said 49mpg highway - in practice I get about 43mpg, the same as the Smart car in this article. I have 90hp, the Smart has 40. My car seats 2 tall people plus 3 short ones, the Smart seats 2 people. Okay, granted, my car emits more NOx than the Smart.
I love Smart cars, they're darn cute and I've wanted one ever since I first saw them in Germany, but...this article leaves me a little unimpressed. Sure, lowering emissions is very important, but c'mon, that's the only benefit this has over my car that's 8 years old? I think innovation should move more quickly than that. Show me a car that gets 100mpg, then I'll think sufficient progress is being made.
man there's a lot of whiny people here today.
guys, they spent about 400 Canadian dollars in gas to drive across the whole country. Call me crazy but I think that's worth being excited about.
43MPG for that tiny thing? I get about 53MPG in my old VW Jetta Turbo diesel and it has 270K+ miles on it. The new bluetec engines are supposed to get ~70MPG.
Was this the diesel version of the smart car? I remember reading that the smart car was capable of 70 mpg...so I am a bit confused. It is true about the new BlueTec engines, they are very efficient, and due to a new type of catalyst, have very low emissions. Lets not forget that diesel engines are also capable of running on biodiesel, which is a huge advantage over typical gasoline engines anyway.
i can count on my 2001 civic getting about 42mpg crossing the country at about 60mph (i stayed off the interstates)
coming down from the rockies i hit about 52mpg, without a corresponding huge drop going up. i attribute this to the engine being complete cut or idling (coasting) most of the time on the way down, whereas on the way up, i was probably going to a bit slower
(diesel contains 15% more energy per gallon than gasoline. meaning my civic would compare at 48mpg. (yes i know diesel has other advantages))
I am disappointed.
For Treehugger:
I expect less invective in the tone of your editorial remarks. If you're writing a purely for treehuggers, some invective may be appropriate - however, if you're planning on *really* reaching the audiences that so desperately need to be informed, you should perhaps drop the playa-hatin'. Historically, calling people silly and poodles (even if they are) has not been proven to be a productive practice. Those who need to know those things already do. Additionally, I'm sure you include Chrysler as a silly American automaker. This is where some perspective is due. Chrysler is owned by Daimler-Chrysler, a German company that *also* owns Smart, as well as Dodge, Jeep, Mercedes-Benz - none of which produce very green vehicles.
For several Treehugger commenters:
Shame on you for pooh-poohing someone's attempt to bring attention to more efficient alternatives. The Smart car is obviously not a perfect vehicle, and we'll likely never have one. If you're down on the mileage they reported:
Ummm - this is Canada, right?
That means it's ~67 gallons, not 89.
Hammy
Big deal - I have a 2000 VW Golf Diesel - according to my current gas mileage - around 48 - 50 at 70 to 75 mph on the highway. Plus it's a four door - fully loaded car with some real horse power. No fear on the highway, no mini car.
I've hauled four adults - plus at least a weeks worth of clothes, and misc. stuff for keeping everyone entertained.
Better yet - if there was a reliable source I could do it all on veggie oil, no petrol at all! How about some real news?
Big deal - I have a 2000 VW Golf Diesel - according to my current gas mileage - around 48 - 50 at 70 to 75 mph on the highway.
Right, just ignore tailpipe emissions. Human lungs are just garbage dumps.
And funny how every diesel fanatic always claims higher mileage than EPA estimates and real-world averages.
Better yet - if there was a reliable source I could do it all on veggie oil, no petrol at all!
Key word there is "could". Do you? 100% of the time? In fact, what percentage of diesels use veggie oil? Right. We know the answer.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml
I don't get the excitement. 9 days? Must have hurt to drive that thing for too long. And only 43mpg (5.47l/100km)? My 2001 VW Golf TDI gets 45mpg, seats 5, stores more cargo, goes faster, and handles better.
And last summer we averaged 12 mpg (20l/100km) in our awesome Ford Excursion (that's right, the biggest of the big) from Vancouver to PEI & back. We had 2 adults and 5 kids, plus a 28ft. travel trailer, and on top of that used no energy resources from restaurants and motels along the way. And thanks to the comfort of the Excursion, we did the trip back in 6 days (did I mention the 5 kids?) Yeeeeeha!
To geekpdx:
While you make some brilliant points, I disagree with your opinion on Daimler Chrysler not producing clean cars. Daimler Chrysler, while they own Dodge, Jeep, Smart and Mercedes and until recently Chrysler, they do not pour their German technology into Jeep, Chrysler and Dodge. Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler are still American cars built with American technology. They benefit from the groups finances, but not their technology. As far as Mercedes goes, the Mercedes Benz E-Class won the overall Green car of the year award this year, so Mercedes are doing well in terms of producing clean cars and technology for cleaner emissions. So my point is that the German side of the Daimler group is doing well in terms of green.
by the way check your math, almost all of the post comment on the 43 mpg without checking if this was correct, it actually is 69.19 mpg i love all of the smart comments that are completely wrong
42 mpg... Who cares? I have a friend with a VW that does in the 50s and you don't see him in an article, plus he can carry more than two people and a bag a fruit for the journey. Post something when you see a person cross the continent in an available production vehicle @ 70 mpg.
Yeah, all American's must be wasting gas according to the writer of this article. This is an insult. I myself drive a 4 cylinder 2001 Ford ZX2 that has either 130 or 140hp, is a 2 door with a fair bit of space and looks much nicer than the Smart Car and also cost less when new. In addition, it has an automatic transmission, cd changer, and AC. And get this, driving at about 80mph I can get 33 mpg with 3 people in the car and a loaded trunk. And the smart car only holds 2 people and costs more. I think they should call it the Stupid Car because there are a lot of nice coupes and sedans with 4 cylinders that can top the rated mileage of the smart car with more space and power. For example, a 2007 Ford Fusion which is a mid sized 4 door car has no problem getting 34 mpg on the highway and can hold 5 and has a huge trunk.
Will everyone please stop griping and talking about how they get more mpg with their diesel engine and their old pollution crazy gasoline engine cars that usually take two the space of the Smart.
How long is it going to take before people realize that a higher mpg doesn't automatically equate to having a green car? Yes you can say that you absolutely NEED a car with a backseat but how many of you actually use that backseat on a daily basis? This is a commuter car built to be used the way most people use their cars, not as a family/friend road trip vehicle.
337 L / 6158 km is 5.5/100km is realy 43 MPG US and 52 MPG imperial.
so let's say it's crappy MPG for such a small car on the highway
yes my overpowered 1999 TDI gave me 5.5L / 100km @ 80mph on the highway while still have 200hp on standby to unleash the furry of 360 lb.ft of torque. (yes it is tweaked for power)
the TDI is a diesel car as is the Smart in Canada. so the Emissions must be the same from the 2 cars using the same amount of fuel.
as a comparison, following the highway limits, my 2006 Toyota Tacoma PICK-UP is able to do 7.2L/100km (33MPG US ).
this article is crap. (as are the hybrids on the highway)
Here's one for you! Georgia to Colorodo to Oregon to Vancouver to Calgary to Banff to Jasper to Dawson Creek and the AlCan Hwy to Anchorage to Denali to Hines for the Ferry to Washington to Oregon to Colorado and back to Georgia. 10,000 miles, 30 gallons of diesel! and lots of used veggie oil. All for less than $300 in fuel costs and road taxes on the grease. Recycling at it's finest, and carbon neutral! And in a 1984 Mercedes wagon, so no new materials needed for a new car!
Shame on Treehugger for furthering this article! Sorry to be a bummer, but 43 mpg is horrible for a car such as this. The arguments that this is "good for a modern car" are unsupportable.
First is the consideration of vehicle capacity. In high school we used to drive around in a 4-seat diesel Rabbit that got 45-55 mpg. That's 200 mpg per person. My Rabbit gas-engine got 33-38 mpg, still 140 mpg per person fully loaded. The Smart car in this article is only a 2-seater, gets lower raw mpg than the Rabbit Diesel, and only 86 mpg per person when fully loaded. The Prius has the same problem as a 2-seater.
Second is the argument that modern vehicles suffer lower mileage because they must be heavier due to required crash protection and emissions controls. This is also bogus. Yes, my old Rabbit had less 'gear', but the steel used in the panels was much heavier (thicker), and there were no plastic or composite parts as in modern cars. The 1979 Rabbit weighed about 1900 lbs. The Smart Car reports in at 1750 lbs (790 kg). What's the problem?
One argument is that modern emissions controls degrad