2008 Smart ForTwo beats CO2 emissions and fuel consumption targets
Click on the photo for a gallery of high-res images from the Detroit Auto Show
With the impending start of sales for the second generation Smart ForTwo in Europe, the company has released the final vehicle certification results. Smart had been targeting CO2 emissions of 90 g/km for the CDi version, but the official testing came in at only 88 g/km making it the cleanest of any car on the market. The fuel consumption target was 3.4L/100km (69.2mpg) but the official result was 3.3L/100km (71.3mpg). Unfortunately, the diesel won't be included in the initial lineup when the ForTwo launches in the US market a year from now. The Smart press release is after the jump.
[Source: DaimlerChrysler]
Even better than expected: smart fortwo cdi boasts even lower standard fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
Stuttgart, Feb 28, 2007
The new smart fortwo cdi is even more environmentally friendly than expected: Instead of the previously communicated 90 grams, the CO2 emissions stand at just 88 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.
The vehicle certification process that has now been completed also established fuel consumption under standard conditions of just 3.3 litres per 100 kilometres. The provisional figure previously given was 3.4 l/100 km.
At present there is no more economical way of running a car
Even more so than before the new smart fortwo cdi has the lowest CO2 emissions of any car on the market today. At present there is no more economical and climate-friendly car than the smart fortwo cdi.
The petrol engine versions of the new smart fortwo also boast impressively low fuel consumption of just 4.7 and 4.9 litres per 100 kilometres respectively. Correspondingly, the CO2 emissions stand at just 112 and 116 grams per kilometre.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Unidentified creature 12:47AM (3/01/2007)
Cleaner than a Tesla Roadster?
Reply
yb 7002 ts1 raM 2:26AM (3/01/2007)
Electric is a much more economical way of running a car.
Reply
Nathan 6:52AM (3/01/2007)
#1: Actually, yes, if you power the Roadster on the US' current power grid. From this report:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf
and assuming a consumption of 0.25kWh/km for the Tesla Roadster, the Roadster emits nearly double the CO2 emissions at the power plant than the Smart ForTwo does at the tailpipe.
Obviously this is untrue if you power the Roadster on renewable energy, but in terms of what is available today for the average consumer, the ForTwo is the more environmentally conscious choice of the two.
Reply
Jim 7:47AM (3/01/2007)
Thanks, Nathan. Good to be reminded that electric cars are not zero-emissions if plugged into the grid, just remote-emission.
Reply
Peter G 1:18PM (3/01/2007)
Actually no. The Tesla is cleaner.
Tesla uses .11kwh/km (according to Tesla) and on 1.35lb/khw average US electricity that amounts to 67g/km for the Tesla.
Think about that. Electric Supercar does 0-60 in under 4 seconds emits nothing locally, but still less at the powerplant, than super frugal clown car that does 0-60 in about 20 seconds.
Why is it that people with a brain still even bother to make that arguement. Electics are just so much more efficient that even when you ignore the other benefits of central location of pollution sources they still win.
Consider that if you add more renewable/nuclear energy the electric you bought last year will improve as the energy supply improves. With ICE technology you will need a new car to see an improvement.
Finally there is significant benefit to central location of emission if you want to scrub emissions or do carbon sequestering etc, keep the emissions off the street where it has been shown that people living near busy roads have negative health impacts.
No matter how you slice it. Electrics are cleaner and more efficient.
Reply
mobile_army_sugical_hospital 6:42PM (3/01/2007)
And the Tesla costs how much? It does not matter how clean the Tesla is if only the elite can afford it.
We are perhaps talking a difference of $80k. I for one would rather people buy en masse a car as clean and efficient the Smart than to have 200 people buy a Tesla.
Reply
Peter 8:14PM (3/01/2007)
Does having it cost more change the misinformation I was trying to correct? The Tesla is just the most famous electric. All electrics will be as efficient or better. Electric is the future.
As far as price, if you are in the USA, the smart shown here will probably cost you more, since it will not be offered for sale. The smart mentioned here is the diesel one, not even coming to the USA. The gasoline model is the model the USA gets. It is not more efficient than a Yaris already on sale and with similarly emissions to the Yaris, not the Euro diesel.
Reply
Nathan 10:27PM (3/01/2007)
Peter, thank you for the clarification on the Tesla's energy use. I was going on an average figure for EVs, which makes the Roadster pretty impressive. Your calculations for that would indeed be correct, then.
The issue, I suppose, comes from "in the future we will have..." compared to what is available today. In the future we could and probably will have carbon sequestration, clean-burning coal, more nuclear plants and more renewable energy. If somebody wants to make an immediate noticeable impact on their carbon emissions, however, and can't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars for a supercar, the ForTwo is an exceptional choice. Electric is the future, but at the present, it's an astounding figure.
Reply
Nathan 10:27PM (3/01/2007)
I should also add that I'm taking a fairly US-centric view here, for the sake of relating to everyone else - where I am, in Australia, brown coal makes up almost all of our electricity generation, so the Smart cars are a wise choice until cleaner power comes online.
Reply
Peter 10:43PM (3/01/2007)
The US centric view would be to get a Yaris or Fit and I fully support that. The smart coming to the USA doesn't get those numbers and doesn't beat other small cars already on the road. I can't afford a Tesla either. I didn't mean to get harsh on this. But I always see people harping on electrics as only moving the problem. Generally they are much more efficient as well.
What I am excited about is the Venture One, though I would go for the hybrid model. Better gas mileage (lower emissions) than a smart and actually fun to drive.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/02/17/venture-vehicles-to-design-and-build-100-mpg-three-wheeled-road/
Reply
Ross 6:00AM (3/06/2007)
For what it's worth - my 2005 Smart ForTwo CDI is capable of achieving under 3 litres/100km - on a recent trip my wife and I managed 2.9!
"Clown car"? It's much better to have a chuckle from your car than to cry from it...
Reply
zigaramsak 4:39PM (12/24/2007)
I was surprised and disappointed about the above article stating that there was no more economical way of running a car.
According to
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=107426
the 2000 Volkswagen Lupo 1.2 TDi had lower both fuel consumption and CO2 emissions - 7 years ago!
Fuel Consumption 3.6/2.7/3.0 l/100km urban/extra-urban/combined
CO2 Emissions 81 g/km
Reply