http://www.smart.com/

A small snappy car that gets nearly 50 MPH.

If I had my drothers, every single driver would be in a Smart car. There are so many people driving by themselves in trucks, SUVs and minivans....not to mention Hummers or giant Escalades.

Why? They crowd the roads, consume gas at a sickening pace, and they're moving a single body from one place to another but also using gas to move tons of steel as well. It seems like such a waste.

Question for debate:

Would you support laws that somehow encouraged such vehicle purchases, be it tax breaks or lanes for Smart Car only, etc.

Could you see yourself getting one of these cars?

I've seen those cars in Europe and the main attraction (outside of the the mileage) is the fact that you can park them perpendicular to the curb on city streets and that's a big advantage in many EU cities.

However, 50 mpg isn't that great in a car that size. One would expect 70 or even 100. The "Swatch" designed "Smart" car is more of a "status" symbol or fashion statement over there than it is a serious environmental impact (which is a questionable premise anyway).

Would I ever drive one? I'll never own a car that can't fit my golf clubs along with at least 1 other rider. That eliminates the "Smart" car, the Corvette, and a lot of the smaller "sports" cars.

Our '93 Saturn gets 40 mpg, fits four people, and if I cared about golf, it'd take the bag. It's also still going strong with nearly 140,000 miles on it.

So, only getting 50 mpg doesn't justify the purchase.

Fifty cc scooters are getting real popular again. Last time this happened, it was the Honda 50, designed more like a motorcycle than a scooter, but pretty much the same thing. You meet the nicest people on a Honda was the ad campaign to counteract the bad-boy biker image promoted in movies.

These scooters get 75 mpg and have top ends of 45 mph, sufficient for most city driving. The downside is that they aren't all that comfy in rain, snow or cold.

The hybrids are still looking good, except for the dang battery. It shoots the maintenance costs way up there if it needs to be replaced. That means trading in every so many years, which isn't very cost-effective.

Bottom line: Rollerskates with good gas milage and standard gas engines would be in the running if we were considering a new car, which we are not.

Tax breaks are already available for hybrids and big SUVs, which doesn't make sense, does it. Ah well, just one more strange thing that came out of the red Congress.

Would you support laws that somehow encouraged such vehicle purchases, be it tax breaks or lanes for Smart Car only, etc.

Living in Chicago - a city where parking has become a very good reason not to have a car - I think Smart Cars would work well. When I've driven other people's cars - I don't own one myself - I've seen semi-parking spaces that I have been unable to park in because of the size of the car. You think - or sometimes shout out loud, "@!!#$! Why couldn't that guy have moved his car just a foot more forward!" A Smart Car would solve problem of finding a place to park most of the time.

In the UK, they are releasing an EV version - completely electric with a 72 mile range... top speed of 70 MPH and 0-60 in 12.5 seconds. Not a drag racer by any stretch, but for daily commutes by anyone with a garage, this would be a serious money saver - great for commutes from the suburbs to the city. I don't know if we'll see this one, though. The auto companies might bury them in the desert.

Could you see yourself getting one of these cars?

Well... I'm 6'7" tall, so... it would depend on the leg and head room. I think it is highly unlikely that I would fit in one. *le sigh*...

Another solution that has cropped up in the city of Chicago is iGo. A non-profit car sharing service. They have Honda cars - some of which are hybrids - parked around the city in pre-paid parking spaces. You pay a small hourly charge... $8.25/hr with 25 free miles (or 6.50/hr + .50/mile)... you don't pay for gas. It's great for quick jaunts to the grocery store... or out to a suburb store like IKEA or something.

There is also a for-profit company called ZipCar - or something like that - that offers the same service... but it's more expensive.

So Dr. Z is a real person, thought it was just an ad gimmick.

Would you support laws that somehow encouraged such vehicle purchases, be it tax breaks or lanes for Smart Car only, etc.

I've written my senator and representative requesting we move towards this type of legislation. I think we’re behind with laws supporting fuel efficient transportation. It was only 4-5 years ago that we took a step in the wrong direction by giving companies tax breaks for purchasing SUV’s. Not sure if that’s still on the books but it needs to be repealed.

Could you see yourself getting one of these cars?

Currently looking at hybrids and other fuel efficient cars. Like lordhelmet my one requirement is it needs to be capable of holding a set of golf clubs.

Co-workers and friends have mentioned that there’s not much of a return on investment for fuel savings, of course that’s at the current price of gas and as it continues to rise the ROI will improve. But more importantly I think that if you have the means to purchase a hybrid or fuel efficient car you should. In the vein of JFK “ask not what this country can do for you, ask….”, I think we should all make it a priority to conserve energy.

Sure, I might add one to my stable of vehicles. I could probably fit one in the back of my Excursion, and I have seen mounts to the bumper so I could put one on my 40' Motorhome. They're cute little fellers. One question though: If you hit a bird in one at speed will it put you in a ditch?

Would you support laws that somehow encouraged such vehicle purchases, be it tax breaks or lanes for Smart Car only, etc.

Probably not. They're not exactly conducive to carpooling or families. 50 mpg isn't exactly a drastic difference from some of the cars on the current market. I think carpool lanes are an excellent idea, but to offer a lane for a certain type of car, even if it is environmentally "sound" seems a bit silly.

Could you see yourself getting one of these cars?
No, but I could definitely see myself getting a hybrid or some other car that gets great mileage. For one, my husband would have a hard time fitting in a smart car (he's 6'2" and already drives from the back seat in our Nissan Altima). We'd also have to strap Kaia and any future children to the roof, so I don't think that'd be a good choice

Most hybrids and such that get the best gas mileage are around 35-40 MPG. 50 MPG is 10 more miles PER GALLON than most of the efficient cars on the road. So if you fill up a 13 gallon tank....THAT'S 130 MILES!


Sure for family vehicles it may be a bad solution. But the car can hold 2 people, and hence a golf bag and a single person. Point being, I sit and watch the express ways during rush hour and see tons of trucks, SUVs and minivans with ONE PERSON in them. That is a total waste. It also takes space on the roads, clogging up resulting in congestion.

Car pooling is a good idea, but how many people really can carpool? I don't work when anyone I know works or even in the same area.

It seems to me that something like a Smart Car is a great alternative to mass transit, and an even better alternative to single drivers going to and from work in 2 tons of steel EVERY DAY.

Also the cost is a bonus. At $10-12K, the car is actually AFFORDABLE. Not like most cars out there.

You just might be able to fit a golf bag in the storage space. And, apparently, it's good for the ever important beer run.

Smart Car storage space

I read that the cabin is built like a race car cage and is incredibly safe in terms of collisions.

I also read that the cabin is deceptively roomy... hmmm. I might have to check one of these out. I saw about 3 of these when I was living in Stratford, ON Canada... and that's a small town. I hear that they are selling like hotcakes in Canada.

I stand corrected with respect to the golf clubs.

Ironically, you cannot buy a Smart Car in California since they do not meet that state's "environmental" regulations.

Well... I think the problem with the notion that everyone should drive a smart car has everything to do with the cost and availability of gasoline.

While I hate to pay for gas, I have two dogs, travel a few hundred miles to Louisiana a few times/year (*not to mention recently Houston for work), and use my truck as a tool as much as anything. The room and the utility it provides are useful.

The problem w/ the smart car is that I couldn't put 4 bags of mulch in the back, or put the dogs and two suitcases in it along w/ my lovely wife, etc. Maybe as a commuter car, it might be practical. How would you pull a boat?

I don't see this car as being practical for the average consumer. If you had to get on the interstate, you wouldn't be able to drive fast enough. If you had to take home a load of groceries, you'd have to go alone, etc.

My opinion is that maybe the automotive industry should pioneer a way to make hydrogen work... little cars are already prevalent in Europe, but not nearly this small. It has to meet the needs of consumers in order to sell... and I don't see this one goin' over in the US...

I imagine if the population density of smaller lighter cars becomes more common then the mortal risk in driving them would drop. Cafe standards hypothetically applied in this way to larger vehicles would reduce the risk they pose by simply becoming lighter, but a light car is a risk to drive in a high speed impact, if you are going 20mph and you go head on with a car going 20mph you impact with a bit more then 20mph but I am sure that is common sense, this risk is made worse if it’s a heavier object you collide with.

Getting cars with better gas mileage means less of that resource used, which applies to a wide variety of things in many different levels. Jobs lost on one side would be gained by others and a simple transition could even be established either privately or not in light of the fact this issue would be issue to see I think by most people it pertains too.

Would I drive a smart car, it would simply depend on the circumstances of my use. If I live outdoors in the tundra, no, if I live in the city and drove around in the city I would say yes.

Regardless of that 50mpg is very nice compared to the cafe standard of 28mpg I think. Its basically double mileage for the cash spent, and of course the more glowing in importance aspect to me is less environmental impact. The Honda insight is another hybrid small car that gets excellent gas mileage, they also have a hybrid Honda accord for those that desire more luxury and related automotive performance, me I hate cars.

The bottom line is something like the smart car should be supported so that producers will have interest in production of like vehicles for consumption or consumers. To cut back dependence on oil in general is not only patriotic in a sense anymore but truly a lifesaver under current scientific perception, or cutting back on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas in general. The government could support this in many ways and I think it should, better, safer all around technologies should be promoted at all levels simply because they are better and safer all around. The governments role in this should be to nudge current people in control of this to go in that direction along with aiding in social support or desire for such, that way everybody wins really and no one has to lose, one of the main reasons I think we have a blockade to such progress. Just like everything else the evolution of such will lead to something other then what it currently is, being the first automobile in relation to today’s automobile provides for a large gap in change, who knows what hydrogen cars alone could be like in ten years of popular support and consumption.

Would you support laws that somehow encouraged such vehicle purchases, be it tax breaks or lanes for Smart Car only, etc.

I think you've underestimated the fuel consumption - the "nearly 50mpg" applies to the urban cycle - once you get out of town it goes up to "68.9 - 70.6" mpg.

And if not being able to carry golf clubs is a reason not ot buy these cars, make 'em compulsory

Seriously, though, here in the UK there are already some schemes to encourage such purchases, though nationally they take the form of expensive petrol taxes (to discourages gas guzzlers) and higher road taxes for larger-engined cars. The lowest taxes are levied on electric cars currently. Locally, some councils run special lanes and congestion charging zones, though the aim here is to encourage fewer car journeys altogether, rather than just make them a little less efficient. In the sorts of places where Smart cars are a good bet i.e. cities, such schemes have their greatest effect because cities tend to be where the good public transport systems are.

Could you see yourself getting one of these cars?

I looked at getting one of the roadsters, but I couldn't afford one at the time - they were new on the market and so no used models were available. And the Fourfour is quite a nice small-ish car (itself mircospcoic by US standards). I confess to being mystified as to the sheer size of most US cars. I don't really understnad why they NEED to be that big. The distances are bigger, but having a car twice as long as an equivalent European or Japanese model doesn't really make that much difference.

Give me a small car that goes fast any day over a big one that doesn't. But then, from my experience of driving in the USA, I'd go mad if I had to drive 400 miles in a straight line before I found a corner to go around.

I think the 50 mpg refers to the mpg after the engine is tweaked to meet US emission standards which are higher than those in Europe. As lordhelmet pointed out, the car as tweaked for the US doesn't meet the even higher emission standards of the State of California.

Question for debate:

Would you support laws that somehow encouraged such vehicle purchases, be it tax breaks or lanes for Smart Car only, etc.
We already have car pool lanes, no need for "Smart Car" lanes. As for tax breaks, isn't the much lower purchase price already incentive enough in comparison to those ghastly oversized, overpriced SUVs that so many of y'all hate so much?

Could you see yourself getting one of these cars?
Why? Why should I give up power, performance and fun, as well as pay more for the trade and use more gas? The Smart Car and its ilk is a step backward.

I agree that it's really just for commuters. And if you live in backwater Mississippi and not downtown Metropolis, you probably aren't seeing all the drivers with giant cars and single drivers, going to work everyday.

The thing is, commuters are where most gas is being guzzled. Single people going back and forth.

Maybe this is a particularly interesting topic for me because Detroit lacks any major mass transit and the majority of people drive big American SUVs and trucks here. So the need here for a slowdown on the waste of gas is evident.

My solution to the whole vehicle situation, if I could change the world, would be for each home to have small electric/hybrid vehicles with incredible gas mileage that they used to go to the market, ride around town and commute to work in. And then have rental places for SUVs or trucks for those instances where you need to tow a boat or whatever.

THey key point is that the small Smart Car is affordable. So you could have your giant SUV or minivan sit in the driveway when you aren't driving the dogs, the kids, or the boat around.

With the gas shortage, eventually this is going to come about anyway. People going to work each day in their Escalades are feeling the pinch now, imagine at $5/gallon!

Would you support laws that somehow encouraged such vehicle purchases, be it tax breaks or lanes for Smart Car only, etc.

On a local level, anything is possible. Would anyone need a tax break to buy on of these? The reported price is $10-12k. (Of course, the Roadster that Julian mentioned tops $22,000 I believe.) I think market conditions should dictate what society uses--as the cost of gas increases, more people will want fuel efficient cars. No need for the heavy hand of government.

Could you see yourself getting one of these cars?

Where would I put my two kids? What can you haul with a 50 horsepower engine (62 hp if you go big time!)?

So the Smart Car would not fulfill all of the transportation needs that I have. So let's say I buy one and just use it to commute to and from work. I drive about 30 miles a day to and from work. I work about 250 days per year. That is 7500 miles per year just going to and from work. In my crappy old Ford Taurus, I get around 24 miles per gallon. Thus, I use 310 gallons of gas per year commuting to work.

If I got a SmartCar, I would get 50 miles/gallon and only use 150 gallons of gas. That's a savings of 160 gallons per year. At $3 a gallon, I'd save $480 a year. Cha-ching.

Except, I'd have to buy a $10,000 car to do it. A five year loan (at 5%) on such a car would cost me $188 a month--to save $40 a month in gas.

The fact that this car is impractical for such mundane things as taking my kids to a birthday party makes it a loser in my book. If I want a small, fuel efficient car, I'd go with a Honda Civic hybrid or a Prius. Those cars are twice as expensive, but at least they could be my only vehicle.

Now, to be fair, Smart does offer a four door model in Europe (which is sold out currently). Of course, it is 3.7 meters long, has a 75-105 hp engine and gets an unknown number of miles per gallon (I couldn't find this info on Smart's website. An interesting note is that the car only has a two year warrantee.

Perhaps this is where the heavy hand of government comes in. I mean, the government spend tons of money subsidizing things like corn - which actually costs more to grow than it is worth to sell. Why not subsidize zero or low-emmissions vehicles like this one?

When I lived In Switzerland these things were new-ish to the market. You saw a few on the road but mostly you saw them as a business car...all gimmicky with the companies ad painted all over. In Switzerland tho if you just wanted a vehicle for commute only all you needed was a train pass. There is also a Mercedes model like this that I saw a lot more of.

Would you support laws that somehow encouraged such vehicle purchases, be it tax breaks or lanes for Smart Car only, etc.

We have carpool lanes already and in some cities carpooling is quite popular, least it is in the DC area:

Slugging

I like the above "story" because it shows that people in America are very capable of coming up with their own solutions and don't require the government to do everything for them.

But it has already been pointed out that this isn't a zero or even "low" emission vehicle. In fact, it would not meet the EU's goal of 120 grams of CO2 per km target it wants to hit on new vehicles by 2010.

How much subsidy should the government give out? $3,000? So that means $7,000 over 5 years: $116 a month without interest. Still a bust economically.

The battery replacement costs and frequency are very misunderstood and exagerated, here is a quote from Toyota.

"The Prius battery (and the battery-power management system) has been designed to maximize battery life. In part this is done by keeping the battery at an optimum charge level - never fully draining it and never fully recharging it. As a result, the Prius battery leads a pretty easy life. We have lab data showing the equivalent of 180,000 miles with no deterioration and expect it to last the life of the vehicle. We also expect battery technology to continue to improve: the second-generation model battery is 15% smaller, 25% lighter, and has 35% more specific power than the first. This is true of price as well. Between the 2003 and 2004 models, service battery costs came down 36% and we expect them to continue to drop so that by the time replacements may be needed it won't be a much of an issue. Since the car went on sale in 2000, Toyota has not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.”

Also the projected cost of batteries is very inaccurate seeing that so few have ever been replaced.

Ah, recognizing the difference between fuel efficiency and fuel emmissions... I knew I didn't own a car for a reason. Well, it looks like a hybrid goes back to the top of the list for me.

If only there were an infrastructure in Chicago that would make owning an EV version practical. But with mostly street parking and, as far as I know, no EV charging stations, it would be extremely pointless to own an EV Smart Car in this city.

If you mean in lieu of subsidizing corn, then that might not be too objectionable. But otherwise, it's just another step towards a command economy that we could do without. If our political culture would simply stop treating high gas prices as some kind of crisis, and instead accepted it and embraced it as something for the market to adapt to through new techniques, technology, and practices, that in itself would be progress.

A study has been released that attempts to measure the energy costs of a great number of vehicles over the life of those vehicles - from design to disposal. The results are astounding in many instances.



Think your VW Golf tdi is saving planet? Oops, not as much as the Hummer H3 or a Viper either. Check out the chart.
:eek:

List of nearly all current vehicles (450 pages)

I did not find the city cars specifically under consideration in this thread, but the concept has relevance to the overall subject.

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

Me thinks that this is a tad bit of propaganda. And the site you quote is a notorious "free market" site.

I see a lot wrong in how they come up with their numbers and that's with the relatively little information that they provide with how they came to their conclusions.

The assumption is that the Hummer lasts longer, so the Prius' short lifetime exaggerates it's actual construction/destruction cost. So if they actually could construct the Prius to last as long as the Hummer, then the Prius would then be better at energy conservation. I love how the study says "life of these cars averaged across various models is over 300,000 miles. By contrast, Prius' life – according to Toyota's own numbers – is 100,000 miles", but he doesn't site a source of how he got the Hummer's numbers or the fact that a technically stated number by Toyota may HAVE to be a more conservative number.

I find it hard to believe that the differences in energy costs for construction/destruction of each car would be signigicant enough to override a 9 MPG truck vs. a 30-50 MPG car. That's more than a 3:1 energy cost advantage. The only way this makes sense is if you assume the Prius has a short life span which dramatically increases the importance of energy spent on creating/destroying the car.

I also think this is not considering recycling issues. Cars typically are not completely destroyed, so if you have an electric motor or car parts, they often can be used again. Even doors, door panels, hoods, tires, etc. etc. It's not like the destruction of a vehicle is that important in energy consumption.

Sorry I don't buy it. They are using the same technologies to increase the MPG for Hummers as they are for the Prius. The Hummer get's now, 20 MPG, supposedly, as seen in their need ad campaigns. So I'm guessing that's increasing the energy per mile?

New technology costs more to make initially, this is true in every market. But it also becomes less expensive as technology becomes readily accepted. The reason automobile and oil companies love bits of propaganda like this is that they hinder the acceptance and therefore, the failure of hybrids becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Does the study take into consideration that the "electricity usage per pound of material" might be misleading because some of the energy used by hybrids is generated by the car itself at no cost?

I'm inclined to believe that this is pure propaganda.

It's like propaganda saying that electric cars are sluggish and slow with no real range. Well, Tesla Motors has a rather attractive Roadster that does 0-60 in 4 seconds, with a top speed of about 130 mph and an approximate range of 250 miles on a single charge – all with exactly zero emissions. It's expensive – about $100,000, but that's primarily because this is an extremely small company making these cars in limited numbers. It costs 1 cent per mile in terms of "fuel" consumption. And at the end of the life of the battery – roughly 100,000 miles, you don't toss the car. You replace the battery – which is recyclable.



If the automobile manufacturers decided to make electric cars, because of the cost reduction that comes about by mass production, such cars would be much, much more affordable.

Who would doubt that the public would buy a better mousetrap or auto? Nobody, right? Well then if they exist and the auto manufacturers refuse to produce them, then there are a limited number of reasons why they don't make them. So why won't they produce them? Some of the possibilities -

A. They are not interested in selling autos;
B. They are in cahoots with the oil companies, and they spent all their money corralling the 100m/p/g carburetor patents, etc.;
C. They are making so much money they don't need to sell any new fangledy kind;
D. They are waiting for the government to force them to sell cars they don't want to sell;
E. People refuse to buy them in large numbers;
F. They are already selling the ones they build at a loss, and they don't like that;
G. The economics don't work.



Incidentally, the questions asked about the study were answered for the most part in the 450 page original study release highlighted in my post.

The point being, of course initially the costs are going to be higher for a newer not as developed technology, but the whole reason behind it typically happen to be associated with higher costs of fossil fuels and or of course the related impact the billions of tons of CO2 hold on the environment that come from such vehicles.

If car companies simply do not want to produce period, or work on the technology related to such, then such will never come to exist. Economically speaking it would be a nice option for people to be able to purchase vehicles that get greater and greater gas mileage, so for a company to produce the same type of car, say a Honda that gets 25mpg, then the same model that gets 35mpg, I imagine for the most part giving the example I put forward most people would by the 35mpg version, simply because it makes sense economically to them. So with that in mind, giving the environment for one, and the price of gas for another that such car companies in the end would end up saving or becoming more successful in the long run to take the environmental option.

Many car companies outside of the united states face cafe standards much higher then what the U.S puts forward, the simple idea is that such technology that makes those cars more efficient most likely will become common place. So with that in mind the reasons to buy a hummer will die off when you can get another nice sporty SUV that gets double if not triple the m'spg, so basically its failing to adapt.

The other aspect that is bringing most of this on is really the need to change current technology to be green in respects to survival, which is simply brushed aside many times. To me to think that we can take a vital part of our survival, the automobile, make it green, which means reduction in fossil fuel use, it also means less dependence on places like the mideast, or other nations that can use such as aspect of our economy to harm us, and again the technology, just like modern automobile technology will get better in time as its developed, its a dimension that is worth exploring, and moreover from a business aspect to me, to fail to adapt to this in the long run is going to be death to a lot of companies, not just from failing to recognize the cost at the pump for anything related but of course the slowing brewing realization of human impact on the environment at large. Honda and many other companies basically use this as a point to sell autos, and many of the times the graphic design attached to such is really aimed at younger generations.

Pretty soon, what will be the point of a hummer in the city, save to say hey look at me, I like to waste and destroy the environment thus life, aren’t I cool. Then you will have other people in green SUVs, going wow, what a dumb person, and I imagine the companies will be able to say the same of each other.

I mean I think the idea about technology development and gains in relation to starting has already been pointed out and or addressed, now you would simply use it to say we should not research and or invest in such a dimension at all… I simply don’t understand.

yo this gas business is ridiculous, readers!

not even going into the middle east thang or nothin over there, but ay,
look man, like if you wanna set yourself apart, use your mind not your automobile, thats my word. you can write that in the bible under the little blank pages in the back that says "notes",

ay dee ay de ay dee ay, oh dee oh dee oh dee oh.

the whole thing is foolish, better read todays mathematics the numbers don't add, that's a fact.

it's getting wild in here, we gotta start over and do what we gotta do...

to survive.

Yes, a 450 page study conducted by a Marketing Research Firm whose clients include major automobile manufacturers. Propaganda, anyone? And a 11-14% margin of error to boot?


DieselNet


Interesting. The study done by a marketing firm contradicts at least 5 other studies – some of which involve were conducted by actual scientists. Why would that be? Propaganda, anyone?

Would you support laws that somehow encouraged such vehicle purchases, be it tax breaks or lanes for Smart Car only, etc.'

No, because people shouldn't be told what to drive.

Could you see yourself getting one of these cars?

If the circumstances warranted it.

Link

QUOTE

"Proponents of higher CAFE standards contend that increasing fuel economy requirements for new cars and trucks will improve the environment by causing less pollution. This is incorrect.

Federal regulations impose emissions standards for cars and light trucks, respectively. These standards are identical for every car or light truck in those two classes regardless of their fuel economy. These limits are stated in grams per mile of acceptable pollution, not in grams per gallon of fuel burned. Accordingly, a Lincoln Town Car with a V-8 engine may not by law emit more emissions in a mile, or 10 miles, or 1,000 miles, than a Chevrolet Metro with a three-cylinder engine."