Italian magazine verifies Smart ForTwo CDi mileage figures
When the second-generation Smart ForTwo entered production earlier this year, its EU mileage ratings put it at the top of the heap for internal combustion engined cars by a pretty wide margin. On the EU combined cycle the diesel version was rated at 71.3 mpg (US) with CO2 emissions of only 88 g/km. The Italian magazine Quattroruote decided to see if that was achievable in the real world. They laid out a 1,000 km route consisting of highways, traffic jams, mountain roads and urban settings in Rome, Balzano and Salzburg. The bottom line is that they consumed 33 L of diesel to cover the distance, matching the official ratings.
[Source: Daimler]
On a long journey of 1,000 km the Italian car magazine "Quattroruote" measured the fuel consumption of the smart fortwo cdi and confirmed the standard consumption of 3.3 litres per 100 kilometres.
The current December issue of the magazine carries a report of the test drive. The smart travelled 1,000 kilometres from Rome to Salzburgon a single tank of fuel to see whether the stated standard consumption of just 3.3 litres per 100 kilometres could really be achieved.
The route chosen largely consisted of motorways, but there were also detours and traffic jams because of roadworks, long uphill stretches and city traffic in Rome, Bolzano and Salzburg.
The result: the smart fortwo cdi travelled the 1,000 km on a single tank of fuel. This corresponds to average consumption of just 3.3 litres per 100 kilometres i.e. the standard consumption. According to "Quattroruote" this makes the smart fortwo cdi the vehicle with the lowest average consumption that the magazine has ever tested in the history of its road tests.
With standard consumption of just 3.3 litres per 100 kilometres and CO2 emissions of just 88 grams per kilometre the smart fortwo cdi is the production vehicle with the lowest consumption and the lowest carbon dioxide emissions. For customers this means that at present there is no more economical and climate-friendly car than the smart fortwo cdi.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
John Coelho 3:23AM (3/06/2008)
If I drive 60mph can't I drive to California from Seattle?
Reply
Timothy 9:18PM (11/05/2008)
@ Tim, comment 6...
you're arguing as if the two things are mutually exclusive...
EITHER a) freedom from foreign oil, less war, OR b) fewer emissions...
that's exactly what you said, and it's a TERRIBLE argument. it's textbook fallacy of false dilemma. the great thing is, we don't have to choose. we could do both, or niether. we don't have to fight a war and get foreign oil in order to decrease the emissions of our cars that are designed and built everywhere EXCEPT the middle east. AND having fewer emissions is no guarantee that we will no longer fight wars to get more oil.
the issues are separate. unrelated. you have fallen victim to political propaganda and conservative brainwashing that seeks to make us think we can't have one without the other and that ultimately one will lead to the other. in fact, this cannot be true. what wars in the middle east has europe fought? east asia? south america?
Reply
Bortier 2:29PM (1/20/2009)
Sorry, I have a Smartfortwo CDI ( 01-2008) and I can only say that with the car I have it's impossible to make 1000km with 33l of gazoline. 4,5L /100km is the minimun I reached.
If I compare this consumption with my other car (GOLF V TDI 105pk) making the same distance, same traject I only use 4,6L/100km.
On paper yes, but reality is something else
PB
Reply
mike 7:51PM (11/29/2007)
71 mpg and approximately $16,000? That's a very good combination. But, not for the U.S. market?
Reply
eckre 8:30AM (11/30/2007)
I looking very hard into a new Diesel (my 1982 300D is needing to be retired) all I want to know is if it will run B100.
Reply
Phil L. 9:47PM (11/29/2007)
We won't get that engine in the Smart here in the US.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 10:54PM (11/29/2007)
This is an 800cc engine. The figures, in absolute terms, are undoubtedly good for the environment and for the pocket.
In relative terms ("top of the heap") I'd really like to know what this car is being compared with. The smallest diesel on the Citroen C2 is 1.4 litres and on the Fiat 500 1.3 litres. 1400cc/800cc is an engine size only 75% bigger.... The Fiat weighs 980 kg, the C1 880kg and the SMART 750 kg. 31% and 17% more. The SMART seats 2 people and the 500 and C1 each seat 4 people. Their boxed volumes are 33% and 27% more.
Up till now the SMART fortwo came with a 1000CC engine. Despite this and seating only two persons and having a much smaller weight, volume, hp and speed, both the C1 and 500 are better than the SMART 1000 in terms of CO2 and fuel consumption:
CO2: 112 smart, 109 C1, 111 500
l/100km: 4.7 Smart, 4.1 C1, 4.2 500
max speed (km/h): 145 Smart, 154 C1 and 165 for the 500.
If you keep in mind that Smart only seats two the above figures are rather ridiculous. So much so that Smart this year have dropped 15% in sales in Europe this year up to October. In 2006 SMART dropped a mere 22% in sales across Europe compared with 2005. These figures are compounded, which means that if the trend this year continues through to December, sales have fallen 33% since 2005 (at 33% they were talking about selling SMART off completely earlier on in the year).
On the EU a table has been issued with the best manufacturers in terms of CO2 and the Germans come last, well after the French, Italians and Japanese, in that order. The C1 and 500 I presume are not available in the US, but surely they have the Toyota Yaris over there? Europe is full of small and compact cars but even here people find a 2-seater an unbearable limitation.
Reply
usbseawolf2000 12:44PM (12/14/2007)
Mike and Phil,
You won't see it in US because 0-60mph is 20 seconds. That's the compromise that US buyers will not take.
For $5,000 more, you can get a much bigger, twice faster and safer car that most people still get about 50 MPG. That's a Prius. In my case, I get about 60 MPG on the highway.
Smart CDi might produce less CO2 than Prius but not other air polutions. That's also something to consider about.
Reply
Val 9:45AM (11/30/2007)
@Karl
Nice math therem but it is completely disregarding the informaton in the article, which is as follows: 88 g of CO2, 3.3 L/100km. The ones you posted are 112 CO2, and 4.7 L/100km. Which kinda makes your argument inconsistent. I dont' know about your impression of the german streets, but i definitely see more smarts than C1s, and the back seats of the C1 do not offer much space either. In the smart you get 2 relatively big seats, and thats not a limitation for people who commute alone in the city and have another large family car. Smart is nont the succes they hoped it would be, but is still quite popular with certain groups of people.
Reply
Tim 11:16AM (11/30/2007)
If you're angry that you can't get this car in the US, blame left wing "greenies" who have lobbied for diesel emissions so stringent that it is more profitable to sell the more efficient diesels in Europe than in the US. It's called, too much too soon or going overboard.
You can only choose ONE top priority!* Which is it?
(a) Freedom from imported oil with less war or (b) Fewer emissions.
*(unless of course your name is Clinton and you therefore have demonstrated that you lacking any personal convictions or spine and then your priority is whatever the last poll said it should be.)
Reply
Richard 12:11PM (11/30/2007)
I don't know why the diesel version of this car wouldn't meet pollution regulations in the US, but I think it's the manufacturer that doesn't want to take the risk of trying to sell this car. I think it would sell very well. They just now started selling the petrol version in the US, with great reception. Canada has had this car for several years. I'm frustrated it's not available. I don't want the petrol version with just 40mpg. I can get a Prius for that or any number of larger compact cars with similar mpg. I'm looking for the best possible MPG.
Reply
Dutch72 8:19PM (11/30/2007)
That is correct a VW Jetta will get between 40-45mpg. using the diesel...
and it pretty roomy, nicely styled..
supposibly the new 2008/09 jetta even gets better mpgs.
Dutch72
Reply
rgseidl 1:36PM (11/30/2007)
@ Richard -
once you factor in the differences in drive cycles, US EPA and CARB emissions regs with respect to particulates and NOx are about 10x stricter than Euro4, the level currently in force in Europe. The smart fortwo cdi has an open particulate filter but the engine design is not the most modern so it only just meets Euro 4.
Daimler AG would have to shell out for a redesign of this tiny diesel engine just for this one model to have any chance of meeting T2B5 after upgrading to wall-flow DPF and adding an expensive lean NOx trap. Unless the fortwo becomes a sales sensation in the US, I don't see that happening. They really just want to keep building the current model for as long as possible to finally break even on the whole smart venture.
Also, the fortwo wasn't really designed for long-distance travel. It's natural terrain is the city, where trips are usually fairly short. The higher mass of a diesel engine means the block takes longer to heat up, which is why a gasoline ICE, a hybrid or a pure EV version all make more environmental sense for this type of vehicle. The only reason a diesel is offered at all in Europe is that the fuel is taxed much less heavily than gasoline.
Reply
Throwback 2:42PM (11/30/2007)
Richard, the Four 2 is not currently selling in the US. At least not from the manufacturer and certainly not with "great reception". I have driven the new car at one of their road shows. I am very skeptical of it's success. The transmission is a major concern for me in that it shifts terribly and for about the same money you can get a Fit, Yaris or Versa. I have my order in but I need a longer test drive before I spend my money. I actually think the diesel would be a better fit. The gas mileage would blow everything else out of the water and probably negate the cost,speed and refinement issues.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 3:17PM (11/30/2007)
@Val
Please visit www.acea.be and you will see what the Smart sales are in reality. In the small car class the Smart sales have undeniably plummeted in 2006 and in the year 2007 to date. When you lose a whopping 33% you're not really going to put this down to "seasonal fluctuations" are you? This 33% of course refers to all of Europe and not Germany where consumers are particularly natsionalistic (compare for example the car market shares of national manufacturers in Germany, Italy and France...). Even in Germany though, Smarts come way down on the sales table for the small car segment. In Europe the top sellers in this segment (called the A-segment) were the Fiat Panda and Fiat 500 in October:
http://www.just-auto.com/article.aspx?id=93110
Those emission and consumption figures, as I pointed out above, refer to the 1000cc version, which is the version you see in the streets in Europe and the version you will get in the US. It's bad enough comparing a 1.4 (C1) or 1.3 (500) litre engine with a 1000 cc, but comparing them with an 800cc is a real boo-boo. No-one, except Fortwo, wants to venture into two-seater territory. But if you really, really wanted to... well you wouldn't do it with these performance figures. A light-weight car with a 1000cc engine should easily outdo th two 4-seaters in fuel consumption and CO2 but in the end it loses out! Even if you spend the majority of your time in the city you still will need to carry passengers or carry your shopping, and may occasionally need to go on a highway, and the 1000cc just doesn't cut it (let alone the 800cc). So it wasn't disregarding the figures in this article: nobody, except Smart, are producing these for the mainstream, and if you really, really want to make a comparison you should at least take the 1000cc
Reply
Charles S 3:36PM (11/30/2007)
@Tim:
You'd probably have more credibility if you didn't bring in the politics inflammatory remarks.
Since you care little about emissions, I will not bother to address such issues with you.
While diesel engine sell "relatively" well, especially among trucks, I can promise you right now that most companies will rather NOT bring over a diesel variant even without EPA rules. Time and time again Americans have shown that fuel mileage is NOT the top priority in purchasing decisions. In Europe, where diesel is cheaper than gas, it make sense that small light diesels will sell well over there. Such is not the case here in US.
Cars like MINI are sold on average of 35,000 units a year. Combined trucks and SUVs sales are in the millions. Even without T2B5 rules, VW diesel sales are not good enough for any other major automakers to BOTHER selling a $20k diesel variant in the line-up. Chrysler which is by far the most vocal about diesels will only make diesel as a premium product.
Current diesel pricing at $3/gal, I can promise you that diesel cars will have little sales advantage over other regular variant, let alone competition from other category of cars today.
Diesels have their die-hards, but it is not enough to make it profitable here in passenger market.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 11:21PM (11/30/2007)
Why wait for 2008/2009?
Today the Yaris sedan does
EPA City/Hwy MPG: 34/40
with the Jetta doing only
EPA City/Hwy MPG: 23/32
surely this means that the 2008/2009 Toyotas will also outdo the Jettas when they bring over their diesels ?????
Reply
zigaramsak 2:29PM (12/26/2007)
I created the account only to express my surprise and disappointment about the above article stating that the new smart fortwo cdi is with its 88g CO2 per km and 3.3l fuel per 100km the production vehicle with the lowest comsumption and the lowest CO2 emisssions.
According to the
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=107426
the 2000 VW Lupo 1.2TDi had lower both fuel consumption and CO2 emissions and all that 7 years ago!
Technical specifications of 2000 Volkswagen Lupo 1.2 TDi
Fuel Consumption 3.6/2.7/3.0 l/100km urban/extra-urban/combined
CO2 Emissions 81 g/km
Reply
Sam Abuelsamid 3:13PM (12/26/2007)
Yes the Lupo 3L did better when it was available. It is however no longer built. The ForTwo CDi is the most efficient currently available car.
Reply
zigaramsak 6:27AM (1/02/2008)
Yes, I know. I just think it's sad because our cars could have been much better many years ago(e.g. fast, big and clean enough). Almost needless to mention that the Lupo 3L had enough room for 4-5 people and top speed 165km/h (103mph). I would expect things to get better in so many years, not worse.
Reply