Slightly newSmartcar Website

[Carnut]

SpdyII, what you read was that they were surprised to get reservations from our two newest states, but that had no plans for centers there in the immediate future.

[smartNM]

Originally Posted by spdickey

Nine dots for California!

Here are the ones I can identify from South to North

SOUTHERN CAL.
San Diego
Laguna Hills
West Covina or Riverside ???
Beverly Hills
North Hollywood
Santa Barbara ??

NORTHERN CAL
San Jose
San Francisco
Sacramento ??

West Covina is Penske
Santa Barbara is Napenberg
Sacramento is Niello

[jonnysan]

Originally Posted by E-SMART

From the Canadian smart site, The Leader Post tested the 451 NA versions and indicated:

Fuel: EnerGuide Canada Fuel Consumption Guideline for the City; 5.9 l/100 km. (48 mpg.). Highway; 4.8 l/100km. (59 mpg.).

They must run these only on a dyno at set speeds in CDN ... and yes, this appears to be the current version not diesel, these numbers also come from the smart canada dealer site but were converted to mpg by the reviewer, would also assume that there are listed in CDN imperial gallons which would change this as well ... far cry from 33/41 ??

And relative to data taken....garbage IN....garbage OUT. In just a month or so, some of our members will be posting REAL mileage numbers taken under real conditions instead of on dyno rolls. Forget about the published numbers!!! That one article about the journalist who traveled from and around San Franscisco to San Jose and back with his lead footed journalist partner driving part of the way, convinced me that the published numbers are BS. Don't even know where that is in this forum but it was an embedded link to a story about his experiences and a good article it was! His lead footed buddy got city 35 and highway 41 while he (the writer of the article) got 43 city and 56 highway...more like what I would expect with good driving habits. His city driving was all around San Franscisco, too, not your average city driving experience!! That Canadian Smart dealer site is probably much closer to real than that published number in the US.
Fuggedaboutit!

[Fredvon4]

Propes said: "For a gasser, and with the revised 2008 EPA tests, that's actually pretty good"

I am not personally disappointed in the EPA "guesstimates" and agree that real world will be reported rapidly here

But I offer this as some perspective that tends to disagree with Propes assertion.... to me 33~41 while very good---- but in 2008 does not seem like much progress since 1971

1973 Toyota Corrola 1.1L 4 speed
26~28MPG
$300 GI special. Mostly used in and around Olympia Washington, cross country several times to schools in Aberdeen MD and back (Max 55MPH days)

1977 Golf GTI 110HP 4 speed
24~26MPG
$500 GI special in Germany, lots of 100+ MPH time on Autobahns. Got 29MPG one round trip from Stuttgart to Bremerhaven and return at WOT most of the way.

1977 Golf Diesel 4 Speed
46MPG no matter what conditions or speeds
My commuter for the entire 80s -- stinky rattle trap... got it used because we liked the GTI... terrible car, but too ecomical for a poor GI to get rid of...damned thing is still on the road and refuses to die. My sister terrorized San Jose with it for 3 years attending School there while we were in Germany for one of the five tours.

1986.5 Nissan Small reg cab Truck 5 Speed
23~26MPG with a VG30E (3.0L V6)
Taken to Germany two tours and got superb MPG at all speeds

My semi adult children have acquired all our economy vehicles. I currently commute in the F350 King Ranch we bought to service the small estate and tow a significant Travel Trailer....

The Smart will take the 11.5~12.5MPG commuting duty off the King Ranch... I will be satisfied with anything near triple the fuel mileage

[paul c]

Originally Posted by Fredvon4

Propes said: "For a gasser, and with the revised 2008 EPA tests, that's actually pretty good"

I am not personally disappointed in the EPA "guesstimates" and agree that real world will be reported rapidly here

But I offer this as some perspective that tends to disagree with Propes assertion.... to me 33~41 while very good---- but in 2008 does not seem like much progress since 1971

But, not one of the cars you list comes close to meeting current safety and pollution expectations. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that these cars are still on the road?