Smart Car of America Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just test drove a 2015 Smart and the shifting was awful to my opinion. Lags in between each shift. After researching, I've found that it's normal. Well I'm curious, does the 2016 (newer model) Smart shift like that as well or does it shift like a regular car?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
The 2016 and newer gas models have as an option a DCT.

2015 and older shift as one would expect a budget single clutch manual to shift.

Automatics may be smoother but they also waste a lot of energy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,577 Posts
I just test drove a 2015 Smart and the shifting was awful to my opinion. Lags in between each shift. After researching, I've found that it's normal. Well I'm curious, does the 2016 (newer model) Smart shift like that as well or does it shift like a regular car?
The 453 smart shifts much more smoothly that the 451. Dual clutches make shifting better and with less lag but still not the same as the typical hydraulic auto transmission. There is also now a 6th gear which makes highway cruising much nicer and quieter. The two models feel dramatically different with the newer 453 being more powerful with the higher horsepower turbo engine and better handling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
The big issue with the Turbo engine is the mileage.

Our 2013 would reliably get no less than 28 in very hot weather with the AC running and in the hilly driving we do.

In moderate weather 34 was about average for our every day stuff and Hwy driving of any amount would see 40-50 mpg easily.

The 17 is all over the map with one tank at barely over 23 mpg and the next at 45 plus, and this was the same route to the same place, with the same weather, traffic etc.

Cool damp weather really pumps the MPG's up (As I would expect)

The power of the 17 is far better and the 6 speed is quite nice.

I always shifted the 13 manually with the stick in the + - gate and feathered the throttle during shifts and it was smooth as silk, but the 17 is far more like a true auto with real quick positive shifts.

Don't appreciate the loud buzzing/popping noise upon a cold start that sounds like an exhaust leak.

Just the normal sound of the air injection unit, but just sounds crude.

Can't believe Mercedes could not come up with a more civilized set up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
The big issue with the Turbo engine is the mileage.

Our 2013 would reliably get no less than 28 in very hot weather with the AC running and in the hilly driving we do.

In moderate weather 34 was about average for our every day stuff and Hwy driving of any amount would see 40-50 mpg easily.

The 17 is all over the map with one tank at barely over 23 mpg and the next at 45 plus, and this was the same route to the same place, with the same weather, traffic etc.

Cool damp weather really pumps the MPG's up (As I would expect)

The power of the 17 is far better and the 6 speed is quite nice.

I always shifted the 13 manually with the stick in the + - gate and feathered the throttle during shifts and it was smooth as silk, but the 17 is far more like a true auto with real quick positive shifts.

Don't appreciate the loud buzzing/popping noise upon a cold start that sounds like an exhaust leak.

Just the normal sound of the air injection unit, but just sounds crude.

Can't believe Mercedes could not come up with a more civilized set up.
I disagree with you to the point of this turning into an argument. Your fuel economy numbers for both the prior and current models is highly questionable, and your expectations of the 0.9L three cylinder are out of this galaxy if you believe it is an "uncivilized" design. My goodness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,476 Posts
Your fuel economy numbers for both the prior and current models is highly questionable...

How so? His #s for his 451 and 453 were very close to those of my 451/453 smarts.

My 453’s fuel economy was similarly dependent on conditions and circumstances, and could range from the mid-20s to the upper-40s.

Such is the nature of turbos, I believe.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
17,476 Posts
I've never gotten lower than 35 mpg in my 453 (though I average about 45mpg) and no lower than 30 in the 451. And that was towing a loaded trailer through town.

I normally get 40 in the 451. Admittedly my hypermiling days are over with the 451... I just go pedal to the metal, more fun that way. :)

Fwiw, I drive barefoot (because anxiety) and that seems to have an impact on my mileage too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,476 Posts
23 mpg's? Exaggerate much?


No, but thanks for asking. Ahem.

And just to be clear, I wasn’t the one who said 23 MPG. Still, I wouldn’t accuse someone of lying for reporting 23 MPG... was that tone really necessary?? I’ve personally seen lower than 23 MPG, however, on short trips with cold starts. There are lots of factors to take into consideration; best not to get too personal about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,199 Posts
I'm in the same boat as Mister_Smart_LA on this one. In my 451, I usually averaged around 35-40mpg... never went below 30mpg average. And that's not taking it either, or "highway" miles, either. I'd drive it like i stole it most of the time, and where i live, and the roads i take on my daily work commute, it's nothing but hills with the occasional stop light.

Same with my 453... except now i seem to average, more often than not, around 40-45mpg. I'll usually get anywhere between 240-260 miles before the 1.3 gallon reserve pops up on screen, and i generally can only comfortably squeeze about up to what amounts to around 7 gallons into the tank (counting what i'm pumping in and what the reserve gauge says is in the tank).

And i think it's kinda funny to say that a car "reliably" gets no less than a certain MPG... especially when the low is 28 and the high is 45. That's not "reliable" in any sense of the word. That's just practically the absolute rock bottom mileage you could expect to get.... which every car has a "reliable" rock bottom. I find it hard to believe you're getting 23mpg on a tank in a 453. Even with temps in the high 90's with the AC cranking taking my usual hilly work commute, I don't think i've ever gone much below 40mpg on a tank.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
No, but thanks for asking. Ahem.

And just to be clear, I wasn’t the one who said 23 MPG. Still, I wouldn’t accuse someone of lying for reporting 23 MPG... was that tone really necessary?? I’ve personally seen lower than 23 MPG, however, on short trips with cold starts. There are lots of factors to take into consideration; best not to get too personal about it.
Saying the car only gets 23 MPG's is misinformation. Anybody can average 0 miles per gallon in the 1.0L or 0.9L 3-cylinder car too if they choose to sit and idle with the engine running while the car is parked. If you interpreted that I used the 'L' word when I did not do so, I also consider that misinformation. I never alleged anybody was "lying."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,476 Posts
Saying the car only gets 23 MPG's is misinformation.

Let’s have a look at what was actually said.

‘snowy rivers’ (source of “23 mpg”), did NOT say that his car “only gets 23 MPG’s”, as you stated. Rather, he was making a point of how much his fuel economy can vary from tank to tank. See here:

The 17 is all over the map with one tank at barely over 23 mpg and the next at 45 plus, and this was the same route to the same place, with the same weather, traffic etc.
Then, I replied that I had found the same thing.

My 453’s fuel economy was similarly dependent on conditions and circumstances, and could range from the mid-20s to the upper-40s.

YMMV... words of wisdom from the EPA.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top