Doesn't it make sense that so many are going to be delivered to each dealer? So your confirmation number really doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. ??

 

Just as long as someone who reserved earlier gets their before someone who reserved later, sure. Since the number reflects your date of reservation, it makes a whole lot of difference

 

I'm a 1419, and I'm very excited for all the folks hearing from the dealers now!

I'd been thinking that I'd see my car sometime in 2009, but with the way the process seems to be moving, maybe I'll make 08 yet!

 

I agree, Willy. As these guys said a lot'll depend on your area. It's going to be tougher in more populated areas I'd think.

 

I just wish I knew where I was on the list. I would like to get my smart before the Huskers win the national championship again. :O)

 

that should be absolutely no problem whatsoever. i figure you have 6-8 years.

 

if the reg. theory plays out as they hope, then it would not matter where you get your car. this is why they are assigning you to a dealer. so, in theory, everybody who ordered a car on say Many 19, should, in theory receive their car around the same time, no matter what dealer they ordered it at. that's how the allocation process should work. what they don't want is for people in CA to be calling dealers in CO to ask if they have cars, because the dealer in CO should have no more "free" cars then any dealer in CA.

 

Awe....we have Tom and Bo back...... :O) I heard Callahan and Buddy Ryan are fishing for a job as a couple!

 

I'll have to admit that I too was getting a little tired of reading the excited posts by the 1173 bunch because I am a, and I'm more than a little embarrased to admit it, 1200. There I've gotten that off my chest. Well, I was just reading the AUTOMOBILE magazine article on the 451 and I'm more than a little disappointed to read that the mileage the author was getting started out at 30mpg and went up to 38mpg. I knew that when they announced the US version of the Smart the MPG estimates dropped from 40-50 to 30-40 but I was figuring that the EPA was lowballing the numbers. I guess not. At this point I'm glad I'm in the second teir of reservationists so that I can read some other driving impressions from the annointed 1173's and if the numbers are really in that range I may just rethink the entire purchase. I can get the same, or better, by purchasing a Honda Fit for even a Chevy POS. I had planned on this thing being a daily driver to and from work. I wasn't planning on making a fashion statement, nor was I hoping to be the subect of the local TV news as some other forum member is anxiously awaiting (grow up!).
So, as it turns out, my past lack of initiative and foresight may actually turn out to be a positive boon. I'll keep reading your comments and weighing my options.

 

hahaha. honda fit...hahahaha. dumbest looking car ever. if only the car matched that advertising image behind it.

the thing i find the funniest is that you are actually making an issue out of the MPG of a $15k car. that's just funny to me. don't know why. if you really have to be convinced to buy this car, then you probably just don't get "it" and this car probably is not for you. i assure you that there are thousands in line behind you who will gladly step in line for you.

one more thing. on the mileage. our speed limits in the US are much higher and we drive much faster than in Europe. it should surprise nobody that our actual mileage would differ from the car that they have had over there for years.

 

I'll stick to my original contention that I am purchasing a car as a utilitarion object and not as a, and I'll repeat, a fashion statement. Oh, I get "it" all right, driving your smart car you be be the object of admiring glances as one who is outside and above the crowd. The car itself is different so I am , by way of association, different. Who's kidding who here. It's nut and bolts and rubber and plastic. Rearrange those same parts and you can make an Aptera and , yes, I would be willing to pay twice as much to get four times the mileage.

 

I'm not wearing it.



It will be close but not quite. Everyone in my family is big and / or tall. I often joke that we don't test drive cars we try them on. I'm not looking forward to all the attention and the Clown car comments but I will put up with it if I can have the car I want. The mileage is still good and don't forget they've redone how they determine MPG. I live in urban Seattle; two cars in one parking space @ my apartment ... awesome

 

It is all about the gas mileage

I agree with ared08. Its all about the gas mileage.
My reservation number is 1405. By then we should be seeing some solid gas mileage numbers. If I don't see numbers in at least the mid forties then I will definately be looking elswhere. The Honda fir looks good to me!

 

I agree with ared08. Its all about the gas mileage.
My reservation number is 1405. By then we should be seeing some solid gas mileage numbers. If I don't see numbers in at least the mid forties then I will definately be looking elswhere. The Honda fir looks good to me!

you're dreaming man. mid 40's are you serious? when was the last time you saw a mileage sticker on a car that was actually MORE than what is claimed? that's one of the biggest scams still out there that Congress was supposed to fix by like many other things has not. the highway mileage listed is still based on 55mph!!!. i have an S5 in the garage that lists 14 and 21. i'm lucky to get 12.

 

If that's 31 mpg...it's bye bye Smart for me....cause that sux. We'll find out next week when you guys go Smartin'. YEAH!!!

 

Every metric consumption reckoning that I have seen is "liters per 100 kilometers" (quantity per distance) as opposed to "miles per gallon" (distance per quantity). To convert, divide l/100km by 235 for miles per U.S. gallons.

 

hollywood, one of our french members, claimed 53 on his first tank.
It was 75% highway/25% city.

I get better than rated MPG on my current car all the time.
It was rated 23/29. I get 26/30 easily.

 

Someday, whenever EPA publishes the info, you will be able to tweak the EPA's annual fuel cost estimate (the real issue) by adjusting your estimated annual mileage, city/highway ratio, and local cost of a particular fuel.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

 

A little more info from our European brothers...

40+...oh yeah!

 

Yeah, man, that's more like it!

 

I had a Suzuki Swift back in 1997 or so and that car was giving me an amazing 51mpg. In all honesty, it was a great car. If the smart can give me something close ( mid to hi 40s ) to that I'd be thrilled. right now, I have a PT Cruiser that gives me 19mpg and I am PISSED that its not even getting anything closer to the 26mpg it said it would. The sad thing is that I called Chrysler to complain and the lady on the phone told me " Well, if you wanted a car that did more mpg, you should go get a Yaris!"

Well, Thanks Laura, I decided you take your advice and go forward with the Smart.

 

I had a Suzuki Swift back in 1997 or so and that car was giving me an amazing 51mpg. In all honesty, it was a great car. If the smart can give me something close ( mid to hi 40s ) to that I'd be thrilled.


Amethyste, I bought a Subaru Justy GL new in 91. It had a three cyl., 73 HP, with a 5 speed trans. This car weighed 2300 lbs. I routinely got 38 mpg This car also had a back seat, ( that's what they called it) and when the rear seat was folded down you had very generous cargo room.
Let me recap, in 91 I bought a LARGER version of the smart, with the same specs and it beat it in mpg. That, to me, is a backward step after 17 years.

 

This is the kind of thing I hear about the HHR...
The mileage absolutely SUX.

 

Yup.... it sux major G-A$$!

 

I spend $300+ a month on gas commuting in a truck that might get 18-20mpg on the freeway. I will be damn happy with 40 mpg if it will actually get that!

 

Read on lurkers, more from the "sour grapes club" follows...

 

I think that it's time for everyone here to settle down, take a deep breath and try to remember that we are all on this forum because we share a common interest.
If the some of the posters on this forum continue to express themselves in such a juvenile manner with the bluster and I told you so attitude I'll just delete this from my favorites.
Of course now I expect to see comments following mine accusing me of being overly sensitive and maybe I am but I look at it this way, about if I were face to face with some of the posters I wouldn't continue to associate with them I would turn and walk away.

 

OK-- I thought the thread was doing just fine... how did those last two posts creep in?...I am very confused...are there some deletions going on?


wow this is a wierd thread

 

17 years ago I'd say EPA standards were lower. Also in that time, Honda, Nissan & another manufacturer made a 4 cyl. model that could get over 50 mpgs. but somehow we were convinced that we needed big SUVs with 4 wh. drive and big 6s and V8s. Go figure?
Also, don't count your chickens.....next week we'll have real-time info on what mpgs our cars get. We the SCOA will be getting our 2008s and have 1st hand data to play with. Boyeeeeeeeeeee!

 

I had several 70s and 80 machines that got 40~50mpg

I always wanted to try one of them 100MPG carbutators but never could find one

 

Now you guys said that, I remember my FIRST car was a 1983 Honda Civic and it was Terrific on gas... I really donno why the cars progressively got worse with time. I feel that we are actually going backwards. But the best car I have ever owned was a 2003 Honda Insight. It was the BEST hybrid ever. Auto stop - manual - I often got 62+mpg - I was so mad when my ex husband decided to trade it in ( without talking to me about it ) cause he was "tired" of making the car payments...

But this time, when I get my smart, the smartest thing will be to run it to the ground and take care of it to the best that I can...

did I mention that I love this forum?

 

Did he trade it in on something that he didn't have to make payments on?

 

Less MPG.

Amethyste: You are right! A lot of the little cars of the 70s got great gas mileage. Our 69 Subaru (360) ran over 60 mpg.

The little car I drive today is a 1993 Festiva (aka Mazda 121) I run 39 mpg , and if I play with it, I can get 43 mpg.

However all the above cars are DEATH TRAPS. Even aside from safety, driving the modern Smart compared to my old Fest, is like driving a RollsRoyce.

Huge gains have been made.

 

The (Not So) Good Old Days

What is the logic for comparing personal recollections of gas mileage for cars of 10 to 15 years ago with a current vehicle's 2008 EPA figures? Not exactly apples to apples.

At least use a common yardstick, like the old (pre-2008) EPA test numbers (which are available for all cars going back to 1985 at www.fueleconomy.gov). For example:

1991 Subaru Justy............33/37
1993 Ford Festiva.............35/42
1997 Suzuki Swift.............39/43
1990 Honda Civic (1.5)......33/37
2006 Honda Civic (1.8)......30/38

Under the same pre-2008 EPA standard, the smart fortwo achieves 40/45.

 

What is the logic for comparing personal recollections of gas mileage for cars of 10 to 15 years ago with a current vehicle's 2008 EPA figures? Not exactly apples to apples.

1990 Honda Civic (1.5)......33/37

Yeah, but the EPA highway figure for the '84 Honda CRX HF (from the first year of CRX production) was close to 60 mpg.

What do you mean 'what is the logic of comparing?'? Why wouldn't one compare vehicle fuel economy? People have an expectation that the newer cars should get better fuel economy than older cars. The point of this portion of this thread is to explain where the mpgs went.

Also, this kinda gets to the issue of the CAFE standards not being raised in however long it was before the most recent change. Since CAFE numbers didn't go up, manufacturers put the effort into getting more from similar mpg.