Treehugger.com Interview

[Old smart]

I ran across this 20 JAN 09 treehugger.com interview with Schembri: Smart Car Interview with President Dave Schembri... You Asked, We Listened, Dave Answers! : TreeHugger . My critique of it is that it appears that Schembri had the questions ahead of time and the opportunity to prepare carefully crafted answers. There really isn’t anything new or very much that is enlightening on the surface.

Digging behind the words I do see a few things:
a. A conscious decision was made to sacrifice some N.A. fuel mileage for performance. I suppose a necessary marketing compromise if a single engine continues to be offered. But obviously the potential was/is there for better mileage.
b. smart USA continues to opt for electric cars instead of diesels. No mention of homologating turbos through DoT/EPA.
c. smart USA was early-on aware of owner customization efforts and brought in the Brabus as an appearance (ed. "only") option. There was no mention of a full-on Brabus nor smart after-market wheels or tires.
d. Schembri did not answer the question of a U.S. end-of-life recycling program, as exists in Europe. I think the Euro thing is mandated.

In the end, I wish that they had interviewed Penske instead.

[JPaul]

Originally Posted by Old smart

... end-of-life recycling program ... I think the Euro thing is mandated. ...

You're right. It's being adopted in some markets in a staggered way but should be general throughout the EU shortly.

More at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_index.htm

[Smart Enuf]

I don't know how much of a factor this may have played, if any, but in California and other states that have adopted CA standards, a car manufacturer could earn significant credits by selling EVs under the states' emission regulations. These credits could then be sold to other companies that don't sell EVs or need the credits for corporate emissions averaging. Diesels, even if clean, would not get the companies such credits.

[Old smart]

I have been giving some thought to Schembri’s statement that there was a compromise made between fuel economy and performance. I assumed it was for the N.A./U.S. market, but perhaps not. It is reasonable to think that rational decisions of compromise began way up at the Daimler AG level before filtering down through M-B Cars Division, smart GmbH, and finally PAG.

A theoretical what-if looks like this: s’pose the hierarchy specified the Mitsu 3B20T engine instead its first cousin, our 3B21? The 3B20T is a 660cc, intercooled turbo used in the Mitsu i-Car. It puts out 63 SAE HP and 69 ft-lbs of torque compared to our 70 HP and 68 ft-lbs. The i-Car’s combined MPG is 41 compared to our 37. The i-Car’s 0-60 is 12.0 seconds (with a 4-speed automatic); our’s is 12.8 seconds (with a 5-speed manual). But, the i-Car’s curb weight is almost 200 lbs more than a smart coupé’s. A little better fuel economy AND better performance may have been gettable with the 3B20T in the naturally aspirated smart gassers.

[SuperGeek]

How about the idea of "one more part to break?" Turbos have been legendary first- and common-failing parts on a lot of cars in the past (70s and 80s?). Has that improved in the most recent decade? A turbo would be great, but with a 2 year warranty I probably wouldn't have bought a turbo Smart simply because of the risk of a turbo going kaput. Maybe that's an old problem, now a myth and Americans need a marketing campaign to set us straight?

Regardless, I'll be watching the EV closely - I expect the electric drivetrain to have fewer breakable parts and be easier to maintain/fix over a 10 year lifecycle.