Smart Car of America Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
Bear in mind that the numbers quoted in Autocar are in miles per imperial gallon. Converted into miles per US gallon they become 39.2 (test average), 35.6 (government urban) and 48.0 (government combined). The government numbers are the standard EU test results; these are listed for all 451 models in the international brochure, which is available on the smart website. Autocar are being a little disingenuous since they're quoting the results for the Cabrio, which are a little worse than those for the Coupe. The full set of test results in US mpg is:

Coupe
Urban Cycle - 38.5
Extra-Urban Cycle - 58.8
Combined - 50.0

Cabrio
Urban Cycle - 35.6
Extra-Urban Cycle - 57.3
Combined - 48.0

These numbers are for the 71bhp engine. You can convert any of the results into US mpg by dividing the liters/100km value into 235.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
Edmunds Work of Fiction

I'm ignoring the flame war about personal freedoms; this is in response to SmartInDenver's question about the Edmunds review:

The Edmunds review cited earlier in the thread is essentially a work of fiction. Edmunds, along with the rest of the world's motoring press, got to test drive the 2008 smart in Madrid this February. The journalist who drove the car wrote a well balanced and generally positive test report which is published on the Edmunds website as a First Drive (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=119682#11). On the other hand, the editor who created the review appears to have summarized the actual test report, and in doing so injected a rather negative overtone.

For example, from the original test: "This is enough power for a run to 60 mph in 13.3 seconds on the way to a top speed that's electronically limited to 90 mph. The engine sounds good, but we'd worry about it feeling uncomfortably wimpy on highway inclines."

From the review: "With 71 horsepower, this powertrain will be able to motivate the 1,653-pound Smart from zero to 60 mph in a little more than 13 seconds, which is on par with the Honda Civic Hybrid. This is enough pep around town, but it feels woefully lackluster (and a little worrisome) on the highway."

Hence a conjecture about performance on highway inclines has become an absolute statement about highway performance in general.

Similarly: "Of course, a car with a wheelbase as short as this will never glide down the road like a Mercedes-Benz S-Class, but the new Fortwo's stretched wheelbase helps it deal with bumps and thumps with something approaching aplomb. Meanwhile, high-speed stability feels much better to us, though crosswinds still can't help but affect such a boxlike shape."

Becomes: "A car with a wheelbase as short as many vehicles' widths shouldn't be expected to glide down the road like a Mercedes S-Class, but the new 2008 Smart Fortwo manages to deal well with bumps and thumps. High-speed stability is also pretty good, although strong crosswinds can wreak havoc on its boxy shape."

Note the difference between crosswinds "having an affect" and "wreaking havoc".

Just another example of "woefully lackluster" journalistic standards….
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top