The numbers for the new Smart Cars puzzle me. When they were first announced I thought I might buy one for my around-town driving to save big bucks on gas, saving my VW for longer trips where comfort counts and for utility hauling (It’s a wagon).
But even Smart only claims 30+ city, near 40 highway for it’s mileage estimate (my guess is that CR tests will confirm lower real-world numbers).
My Passat gets 25 or so in the city, 30+ highway.
Why would I plunk down 15 grand for a car that has almost no utility except as a short-range commuter when it only gets marginally better mileage?
ETA: Obviously the highway number is a 30% improvement over my current car, but I don’t think a car as small as the Smart would be good for highway use. Definitely not for me, anyway.
My Scion Xa gets 38-40mpg. Of course, even with the side and frontal airbags, if I get into a crash with just about anything on the interstate, I’m toast…
For reference: 50-60 mpg is about par for a one or two cylinder, mildly tuned (not crotch rockets) sub liter motorcyle. Plenty of liter class bikes will get 40-50 mpg. motorcycle aerodynamics are usually so poor that this is typically about the same in town or on the highway.
The old Fiesta was actually sold in the US for a bit as well (and named Fiesta, not Festiva). My dad had a bright yellow one in California around 1979.
The “Fiesta” isn’t “UK-based,” it’s German based, as the Ford of Europe design group is located there (in Cologne). The new Fiesta is mixed: Mazda platform with a German tophat. It’s being built in Cologne, and probably Saar-Louis, and maybe Valencia. Plus in China for the Chinese, and then later in Mexico for the Americas. For some strange reason, it was deemed better to keep the name “Fiesta” globally rather than, you know, use the hip name “Verve” for North America.
IMHO something went horribly wrong with the marketing for the Smart in America. Somehow the rumor got started that the Smart would be the ultimate economy car and now people are disappointed because it isn’t.
The Smart is a lifestyle accessory and it has always been rather expensive for its size-class. It’s for people who want a tiny car and are willing to pay a premium for one that’s a notch above the truly frugal low-end cars. In a way it’s the perfect car for certain parts of Apple’s customer base.
One reason why you don’t see 40+ MPG cars is because they were crowded out by SUVs.
Here how the logic runs:
The smaller cars sold for less money. Hence, the profit per car was less. My 1990 Ford Festiva (43 MPG right to the end), sold for about $10,000, new.
Because SUVs are classified as light trucks, they meet less stringent requirements for gas milieage (about 20 mpg) and, for awhile, emissions.
With the glut on the market of oil at that time, SUVs became more popular to buy. Because automakers make more profit on each one, it was more profitable for them to emphasize SUVs and dumps the fuel-efficient cars.
One interesting aspect: the report mentions that the EPA has considered raising the mileage standards for SUVs, but fear that the automakers would simply add more weight to the models and bump them into the “medium-weight” class. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Cars get better milage now, at the high end. It is just that the EPA figures now are close to reality. Several Hybrids get 45+ MPG (nad were rated at 60). That 50 MPG figure for the Sprint is more like 40+.
I own a SC2 right now, it really only gets 30+ MPG overall. I have got much higher for one tank on a special trip, but when you remember “50 MPG” you are remembering only a special high point. And I owned a SC2 before this one. The milage was fine, but it ain’t no 43 MPG.
The Honda Fit gets pretty damn good milage for it’s price (40+). And they have Air and a Std Trans. The Saturn Astra also has both. So does the Aveo.
Only both SmartAleq and I saw 60 mpg in 1st-gen Sprints, and we both achieved 50 mpg on a regular basis. This is real-world driving.
But back then there was a 55 mph speed limit, so I rarely went over 65. Usually closer to 60. (Heck, I can increase the gas mileage in my Cherokee 25% if I drove 55.) Maybe the EPA takes into account higher speeds now? But I did get 50 mpg back in the day.
Balthisar…first of all, new EPA estimates. (My Civic hybrid dropped from 49/50 to 40/45 just from the EPA revision.) FWIW, I get about 40 city, 52 highway, so in a way, both numbers are right.
Second of all, the current Civic is nearly twice the size of the '78 Civic. Pretty much all small cars have gotten larger. I’m a large man, and fitting in a '78 Civic would have been nearly impossible, but I fit just fine in my '06 Civic Hybrid.
If you got/get 50MPG in a car rated for 35MPG, then you’ll get better milage in any car you drive like that. Milage depends heavily upon the driver. Thus, if you bought a new car rated for 33 MPG, if you still drove that way, you’d get 40+MPG now.
There was nothing special about those old cars. *Other than being rolling death traps.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t asking the question, I was answering it – the photos were just to prove my point. Hopefully no one gets the idea that they’re the same size, because I’m expressly trying to show that they’re not!
The Honda Fit is about comparable in size with the original Civics and CVCC’s (Civic predecessor). The current Civic is about the size of the Accord a couple of generations ago.
My two Civics were fun, sporty cars. Looking at them now, though, makes me wonder what the hack happened to Honda. They scream “grandma car.” There’s no way I’d be caught dead in one these days. Well, until I become a grandma (and me being male and all…).
