Living Car Free - Car Light Car Spotting

http://www.geocities.com/hobartlemagne/smallcar.jpg

I saw one of these Smart cars for the first time in person today in front of my office.
They really are strange looking. I like that they get 40mpg though.

I would expect them to get more then that. And I would think for a car that small they could make it between the lines a bit better!

I wonder if I could get my fat rear in that thing.

yeah, 40 MPG sucks. who cares. we need 100 MPG cars

Well, its also categorized as an Ultra-Low-Emissions-Vehicle.
Anyway, it gets about double the fuel economy as most of the
cars it was parked next to.

I could see myself in this. (taken in Munich)

http://www.futuregringo.com/munich/mopedcar1.JPG

I could see myself in this. (taken in Munich)

http://www.futuregringo.com/munich/mopedcar1.JPG

Theres some dealer in California that has a bunch of those for sale with
a terrible looking website that has lots of pictures of them.

If anyone is thinking of a new car, wait till 2009 when the plug in hybrids start coming out. Don't buy a gasoline only engine, you will kick yourself for doing that soon enough ;-)

http://www.geocities.com/hobartlemagne/smallcar.jpg

I saw one of these Smart cars for the first time in person today in front of my office.
They really are strange looking. I like that they get 40mpg though.


So did these, only 36 years ago.
http://world.honda.com/history/challenge/1972introducingthecvcc/img/index_top.jpg

Well, its also categorized as an Ultra-Low-Emissions-Vehicle.
Anyway, it gets about double the fuel economy as most of the
cars it was parked next to.

I think my dads 4 door 2000 Honda Accord is considered an Ultra-Low-Emissions-Vehicle, not that its terrible or as bad as a V8 Suburban, but we really could do better.

Geo Metros get the same MPG as the Smart. Both have 3-cylinder engines.

The smart doesn't impress me. A tiny little marginally useful tin can that ONLY gets 40 mpg? If I'm going to drive a little tin can it better get much better mileage.

Well, its also categorized as an Ultra-Low-Emissions-Vehicle.
Anyway, it gets about double the fuel economy as most of the
cars it was parked next to.

Uh, no.

Unless the sedan it is parked next to is a KIA or over 20 years old, it should get 25 mpg as a bare minimum. It's fairly easy to buy an SUV that gets more than 20 mpg (and there's no excuse for buying one that gets less, since they were being sold in 1990 with that level of efficiency).

Matter of fact, you could buy cars in the 1990s that got 40mpg. This vehicle has *no* excuse for doing that badly. The fact that you are letting car manufacturers get away with lazy engineering is... not good. For a vehicle that small and light, the gas mileage is atrocious.

KIA seems to pride themselves on selling car shaped objects. They consistently have the worst miles per gallon of any vehicle in their category, and often their mpg is one I wouldn't have accepted in the 1980s... and my parents wouldn't have accepted it in the 1970s.

http://www.geocities.com/hobartlemagne/smallcar.jpg

I saw one of these Smart cars for the first time in person today in front of my office.
They really are strange looking. I like that they get 40mpg though.

Shame they won't let the diesel version in the country, it gets close to 80mpg.

I had one of those Honda 1200's mine was a 1978 but was not a CVCC. IIRC it usually got 42 on the highways and about 34 in town. Excellent little car. Honda has always been on the forefront of meeting whatever government standards pop up.

Aaron:)

http://home.hetnet.nl/~h-a-68/PLAATJESMAP/civic.jpg

I wonder if I could get my fat rear in that thing.
I was driving one of those the other day and my previous boss ( 6'8"-6'9" 320lbs ) could get in and drive it.
Granted, it looked funny and he had to use the paddle shifters ( gear stick was under his knee ) but he said
it was easier to get in than a civic. (high, upright seating position)

Myself (6'2" 200lbs) had no problems, and i managed to get my road bike in, with wheels off, and about
a carts worth of shopping.

I had thought it was missing a little something on the highway, it was! I had not reached top gear! :o

Well, its also categorized as an Ultra-Low-Emissions-Vehicle.
Anyway, it gets about double the fuel economy as most of the
cars it was parked next to.


I agree. I was just expecting more from that light of a car. Maybe the engine is low key and as you say low emission.

Daimler Chrysler decided to not import these cars with the smaller motors that get better mileage. They thought that the American consumer wouldn't want them. They are idiots. Anyone wanting a two seat car this small wants high miles per gallon.

Now that the companies have broken apart I wonder if Mercedes will change its mind about importing models with the more efficient engines.

I remember seeing a story about this body style being developed in Germany more than ten years ago. An electric version or a flex fuel plug-in hybrid would make this a great car to have around. Zap the US electric car and motorcycle company wanted to make some of these as electric vehicles. I don't think the deal went through. There were no Smart cars on their web site the last time I looked.

40 mpg sucks. I want some of these:

http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/citycar.jpg

They're stackable cars. 100% electric. The wheels have their own motors so you can drive right next to an open spot and turn the wheels sideways and drive right into the spot, sideways (no more parallel parking).

Also, they're stackable:
http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/mit-stackable-city-car.jpg

Stacked, it will take up 1/8 the space of a normal car. And they're planning to have spots around cities where you can pickup and leave the car (like zip cars, except here you'd swipe your creditcard on the actual car). They're building them with GM.

oh, and they're also building these:
http://cities.media.mit.edu/projects/roboscooter.jpg

40 mpg sucks. I want some of these:

http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/citycar.jpg

They're stackable cars. 100% electric. The wheels have their own motors so you can drive right next to an open spot and turn the wheels sideways and drive right into the spot, sideways (no more parallel parking).

Also, they're stackable:
http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/mit-stackable-city-car.jpg

Stacked, it will take up 1/8 the space of a normal car. And they're planning to have spots around cities where you can pickup and leave the car (like zip cars, except here you'd swipe your creditcard on the actual car). They're building them with GM.

oh, and they're also building these:
http://cities.media.mit.edu/projects/roboscooter.jpg
Any links to details?

yeah, 40 MPG sucks. who cares. we need 100 MPG cars

I saw an interview with the businessman responsible for importing Smart cars to the US, and he described the 40mpg "issue" as a tradeoff between performance and efficiency.

The fact is, if we were willing to forgo safety features such as crumple zones, airbags, and traction control, and if we didn't care that our autos took 25 seconds to accelerate to 70mph, we would have 100mpg cars today.

It's all moot anyways. The future of cars is in plug-in electrics like the Chevy Volt, which has a supplemental ICE generator to charge the fully electric drivetrain in the event of an extended drive.

The fact is, if we were willing to forgo safety features such as crumple zones, airbags, and traction control, and if we didn't care that our autos took 25 seconds to accelerate to 70mph, we would have 100mpg cars today.

No kidding. Ram a Smart FourTwo into a barrier and it'll bounce off, whereas that original Civic would fold in half.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcuimw8ql_A
Longer version: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s&feature=related

Safety & comfort features add weight, and weight kills fuel economy. Frankly, I'm surprised that today's cars can make as much power as they do, pushing as much weight as they have to, and still return average fuel economy that's as good as, or better than, in the past.

Calling the Smart a "marginally useful tin can" is really doing it a disservice, too. I've seen these things crawling everywhere around Europe. A car like this will handle probably 95% of the stuff that people use cars for -- or maybe even everything. You'd be surprised by how much space is wasted in normal coupes & sedans. I think my dad wants a Smart.

Of course, if even the petrol FourTwo is too slow, you can always swap in a Hayabusa motor:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4gseTGwppbg&feature=related :D

And that Scion tC parked behind the Smart in the OP's pic? Expect that one to get about 25 mpg, too, depending on how it's driven.

I was driving one of those the other day and my previous boss ( 6'8"-6'9" 320lbs ) could get in and drive it.
Granted, it looked funny and he had to use the paddle shifters ( gear stick was under his knee ) but he said
it was easier to get in than a civic. (high, upright seating position)

Myself (6'2" 200lbs) had no problems, and i managed to get my road bike in, with wheels off, and about
a carts worth of shopping.

I had thought it was missing a little something on the highway, it was! I had not reached top gear! :o


That's pretty good! I am between you and your boss's size and think it would be doable given the benefits. Naturally I'd like to recline and have someone feed me grapes but that's not happening.

All this talk about plug-in cars being so great... If your power comes from a coal plant (or any other fossil fuel plant), a plug-in car isn't clean or sustainable. Just because there isn't a brown cloud coming right out of a the tailpipe doesn't mean the car is emission free.

We need clean and renewable electric power sources before electric cars will be a viable option.

The fact is, if we were willing to forgo safety features such as crumple zones, airbags, and traction control, and if we didn't care that our autos took 25 seconds to accelerate to 70mph, we would have 100mpg cars today.
And of course, we can't forgo most of that stuff because it's mandated by the federal government.

Consider that the Smart weighs 300lbs more than the magic 1972 Civic and has 20 more HP. It also has to contend with much stricter emissions requirements which, paradoxically, hurt fuel economy. Frankly, I feel that many of the current crop of cars posess amazing combinations of economy and practicality. A base Mini Cooper with a 6 speed transmission gets 37mpg on the highway even under the stricter 2008 EPA system. It doesn't even have a throttle plate in the traditional sense - it uses variable valve lift to act as a "throttle".

And of course, we can't forgo most of that stuff because it's mandated by the federal government.

Consider that the Smart weighs 300lbs more than the magic 1972 Civic and has 20 more HP. It also has to contend with much stricter emissions requirements which, paradoxically, hurt fuel economy. Frankly, I feel that many of the current crop of cars posess amazing combinations of economy and practicality. A base Mini Cooper with a 6 speed transmission gets 37mpg on the highway even under the stricter 2008 EPA system. It doesn't even have a throttle plate in the traditional sense - it uses variable valve lift to act as a "throttle".

And the mini doesnt have a rear axle either.

I thought car-lite was about how and how often you use the car, not the type of car it is.

Just as I wouldn't classify as car-free anyone who rides around in other people's cars. For example, children and teens who don't own cars but are chauffeured everywhere by car aren't car-free by virtue of their non-ownership alone. It's usage (or more accurately, non-usage) that defines car-free-ness.

So, sure, I'd call the Smart a lite car, and applaud anyone who replaced an SUV with it. But owning one doesn't make you car-lite. That depends on how often you travel without the damned car.

I thought car-lite was about how and how often you use the car, not the type of car it is.True dat. Actually, I've been thinking if I ever buy a car, it will be a small station wagon or something similar. Why? Because whenever I need a car, it's either because I'm hauling some bulky stuff, or I'm going somewhere with a group of people (who don't want to ride). A Smart doesn't help much there.

I once drove a Fourtwo around for a couple of days. It's funny how it seems like a normal car when you sit inside - until you look back. At a traffic light you look in the mirror and see a front grill where you'd expect to see a back seat. It can be a bit unnerving, especially if the front grill behind you is attached to a bus.

VW Polo and Seat Ibiza diesels get the same or even slightly better mileage than the Smart cdi diesel (about 72MPG). Mini Cooper, Toyota Yaris and Skoda Fabia diesels get close to that. And those are cars with room for 4-5 persons plus some luggage. OK, the Mini is a two person car that has a padded luggage department with seatbelts. :)

--J

The auto industry can kiss my chiseled arse!
They only care about making oil companies more money.

That Chevy Volt. Bah! It sounds good but the word before Volt is Chevy... Nah!

The next car I buy is going to be 100% electric and 100% affordable.

$100,000 2-seat Tesla roadster... Bah! I have kids and I occasionally need to buy groceries.

It's going to be a long time methinks.

This topic pushes my "word salad" button.

The auto industry can kiss my chiseled arse!
They only care about making oil companies more money.

That Chevy Volt. Bah! It sounds good but the word before Volt is Chevy... Nah!

The next car I buy is going to be 100% electric and 100% affordable.

$100,000 2-seat Tesla roadster... Bah! I have kids and I occasionally need to buy groceries.

It's going to be a long time methinks.

This topic pushes my "word salad" button.

They are coming. Slowly but they are on the way.
http://www.aptera.com/
$30,000.00 or less

http://www.soundscapes.be/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/aptera1.jpg

http://www.newlaunches.com/entry_images/0907/28/Aptera_Electric_Three_Wheeler_2-thumb.jpg

http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/aptera2.jpg

Love the Aptera! My wife and I want to get the electric version.

That looks like a UFO!

Any links to details?

Click on "mobility" and then either "city car" or the scooter link.
http://cities.media.mit.edu/

The fact is, if we were willing to forgo safety features such as crumple zones, airbags, and traction control, and if we didn't care that our autos took 25 seconds to accelerate to 70mph, we would have 100mpg cars today.

That's not even remotely true. We could easily make cars that are safe and get plenty of miles to the gallon. Aside from the obvious electric cars, there have actually been cars built in the past that got 100's (plural) of miles to the gallon but they never mass produced them because they made more money with the crappier cars. (See the contest that I believe Citgo? held in the 1970's, a car got 379 mpg -- albeit going 35 mph)

That's not even remotely true. We could easily make cars that are safe and get plenty of miles to the gallon. Aside from the obvious electric cars, there have actually been cars built in the past that got 100's (plural) of miles to the gallon but they never mass produced them because they made more money with the crappier cars. (See the contest that I believe Citgo? held in the 1970's, a car got 379 mpg -- albeit going 35 mph)

I addressed that. Why don't you reread the second part of my quoted post and give comprehending what I wrote a shot?

There are two major obstacles to great fuel economy: features and performance. Go ahead and spend countless millions in R&D building a car which gets 400mpg, but if it takes 2 minutes to accelerate to a top speed of 35mph, nobody will buy it and the effort will have been wasted. The consumer demands an auto which gets them where they want to go safely, comfortably, and quickly. These demands will never change, and rising fuel costs will only add a fourth demand: economy, which will be met with hybrid-electric autos.

That's not even remotely true. We could easily make cars that are safe and get plenty of miles to the gallon. Aside from the obvious electric cars, there have actually been cars built in the past that got 100's (plural) of miles to the gallon but they never mass produced them because they made more money with the crappier cars. (See the contest that I believe Citgo? held in the 1970's, a car got 379 mpg -- albeit going 35 mph)sigh. And they're keeping solar cars from us too, right?

"They" (whoever they are) never mass produced those Magic Cars because they are not even remotely road worthy as condiment alluded to. Nevermind "features", a modern car has all kinds of safety and emissions requirements that are at odds with maximum mileage. The itty-bitty Smart STILL weighs 1800lbs in US trim!

As an interesting aside: if gas is $3/gallon, an all-electric Tesla costs in electricity use (in CA, at least) about what a 70mpg car would cost in gas. Tesla themselves claim an "equivalent" mileage of 55mpg vs. gasoline when you factor in all the inefficiencies of transporting the energy (electricity or gasoline) around.

Lunch is still not free.

Part of the car light shopping problem is that the government is seeing to it that I cannot possibly buy what I'm looking for: A three door hatchback, three cylinder engine, five speed transmission, capable of giving me mid to high 40's in gasoline mileage - which puts it up there with my two motorcycles.

And I've owned the car in the past (bought it for my live in girlfriend at the time): a 1996 Geo Metro.

It didn't have air bags, weighed a good 500-1000 pounds less than anything equivalent nowadays. Now you're talking to a guy who spends 85% of his time in transit on either a motorcycle or bicycle. I don't care about airbags, automatic stability control, etc. But I'm not allowed to buy a new (or newish) car without them.

Yeah, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.

yeah, 40 MPG sucks. who cares. we need 100 MPG cars

One of the things we really need is electric bikes being used as alternatives to the car. Cut the vehicle weight to 40 pounds and suddenly 500mpg becomes possible.

I thought car-lite was about how and how often you use the car, not the type of car it is.

Just as I wouldn't classify as car-free anyone who rides around in other people's cars. For example, children and teens who don't own cars but are chauffeured everywhere by car aren't car-free by virtue of their non-ownership alone. It's usage (or more accurately, non-usage) that defines car-free-ness.

So, sure, I'd call the Smart a lite car, and applaud anyone who replaced an SUV with it. But owning one doesn't make you car-lite. That depends on how often you travel without the damned car.

So now i can't even take a ride when offered? What about renting a car for a weekend get away?
Oh well, guess i am not car free....

You might be more comfortable without that giant stick in your @ss

I saw a Smart car up in North Dallas last December! they are coming. They are pretty popular in Europe, though over there, they are "premium" small cars.

We think $3+/gal gas is expensive - yet the Euros are paying double to triple that, and still, most everyone who can buy a car, buys one. Major Euro cities take draconian steps to discourage car ownership/use, some cities have decent public transportation, yet many big Euro cities are more clogged than the US! Car ownership is still obviously an ideal, a goal, a big part of leading a "full" life, to a lot of folks. It represents freedom, sex, individuality, blah blah. It likely will not change soon.

Cheers

My 91 honda crx gets over 40mpg and it's a blast to drive. It is 2/3 trunk so I can haul tons of stuff with it. It even has a trailer hitch and Ive hauled my motorcycle on a trailer with it. I like the smart car, but I'm going to wait for an all electric before I replace the 'rex

my '89 geo metro averaged 49 mpg. great little car, but loud, cheaply built, and definitely not safe.

my 2006 civic hybrid is a Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle, has an automatic transmission, has anti-lock brakes, airbags galore, maxes out all safety tests, comfortably seats five, and gets mid-forties per gallon in real-world driving. it's dead quiet at 80 mph, handles securely, and feels honda-tight. it's an ASTONISHING advance in technology. from what i've read, the toyota camry hybrid and the prius are better in almost every way.

i expect my next car purchase, at least a decade away, will be a plug-in diesel-electric hybrid burning bio-diesel and using a mix of batteries and ultra-capacitors. but for now, if everyone just switched over from (real world) 25 mpg SUVs and cars to (real world) 40 mpg hybrids, we would *massively* cut emissions (not only carbon, but pollutants as well) and foreign oil dependence. and what would the sacrifice be? practically nothing!

i applaud nyc's switch to hybrid taxis. what a difference that will make!

long-term changes, and lifestyle changes, such as car-sharing, increased bike commuting, public transit, must ALSO happen. but switching to a hybrid, not even a plug-in, but just a regular hybrid, is something everyone can do as soon as their next vehicle purchase. why 90% of new cars sales are NOT hybrids is a complete mystery to me.

electric-assist, fully-faired recumbants like the Go-One are sweet too...

my '89 geo metro averaged 49 mpg. great little car, but loud, cheaply built, and definitely not safe.Then why are you still here?!?! Shouldn't you be in the hospital or something? ;-)

impeccable logic. i guess there's no point in health insurance (or insurance of any kind) if you haven't used it.

safety is about RISK, and the risk of death in the Geo was high. I'm fortunate I was not in an accident. That doesn't make the Geo any safer.

;)

impeccable logic. i guess there's no point in health insurance (or insurance of any kind) if you haven't used it.

safety is about RISK, and the risk of death in the Geo was high. I'm fortunate I was not in an accident. That doesn't make the Geo any safer.

;)

Then why ride a bike? :p

i wouldn't ride a bike on superhighways with SUV traffic going 80. but it felt a little like that in my Geo Metro...

:)

anyway, the broader point was that the engineering in the new hybrids goes way, way beyond the efficient cars of the past. if MPG were the goal, regardless of safety and emissions and performance, it would be easy to build a 65 mpg hybrid.

I wonder if they make a loud car version of a bike bell hehehe

my '89 geo metro averaged 49 mpg. great little car, but loud, cheaply built, and definitely not safe.

That's more a comment on social expectations of an automobile nowdays, than a comment on the car itself. Back when it was new, the Geo was every bit as safe as any other compact on the road. And of course it was cheaply built, it was one of the least expensive new cars available on the market back then. You don't get Lexus quality unless you're willing to pay for the Lexus.

Gawd, we're nannying ourselves to death anymore! :rolleyes:

That's more a comment on social expectations of an automobile nowdays, than a comment on the car itself. Back when it was new, the Geo was every bit as safe as any other compact on the road.

"As safe as" unsafe doesn't make a Metro "safe", though.

Which is safer, a Volvo station wagon that's fifteen years old, or a newer, smaller Renault?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I


And of course it was cheaply built, it was one of the least expensive new cars available on the market back then. You don't get Lexus quality unless you're willing to pay for the Lexus.

A lot of it is the name, I'm becoming more and more convinced... but yes, to build a car with quality parts means that you have to throw away the parts that weren't perfect to begin with, and you've gotta pay for the production of those parts somehow.


Gawd, we're nannying ourselves to death anymore! :rolleyes:

Funny how rules do that. :D

All this talk about plug-in cars being so great... If your power comes from a coal plant (or any other fossil fuel plant), a plug-in car isn't clean or sustainable. Just because there isn't a brown cloud coming right out of a the tailpipe doesn't mean the car is emission free.

We need clean and renewable electric power sources before electric cars will be a viable option.


Not so. A fully electric car charged from a coal power plant is still cleaner than the most efficient fossil fueled vehicle per km of use.

The Geo was great. I bought it for $3.5k with 20k miles and drove it until it died around 100k miles. If everyone else drove Geo Metros, it would be wonderful still. But traffic is CRAZY now.

I saw the Geo up on the stand at the shop. It's a glorified bike. I can only imagine what would happen with Metro vs Hummer. Civic vs Hummer is still a losing proposition, but I've got better odds of walking away.

My point was just that all of the engineering advances allow the possibility of Metro-like cars that get 60+ mpg or cars like the Civic Hybrid (mine) or Prius that get mid-forties and are PZEV, safe, fast, reliable, comfortable. If everyone drove these cars, we could produce all of our oil domestically and slow global warming dramatically, with virtually NO tradeoff in terms of convenience, safety etc.

Why is this controversial? Sheesh!