Is anyone impressed by these 'smart' cars? - Page 8 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

View Poll Results: Are you impressed that a golf cart can get 40mpg?
Yes 14 15.38%
No 77 84.62%
Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-21-2008, 04:27 PM   #71
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_SD26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 529
Country: United States
WOW!!
__________________

__________________
Dave
GasSavers_SD26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2008, 06:59 PM   #72
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 125
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
Pollutes less? Prove it.

Looks better? I don't agree.

Gets better mileage? So how far have you driven one, to arrive at that conclusion?

Carries more? Probably, but why not buy a dually P/U if that's a major criterion.

Transport Canada has been testing new cars for rear end impacts (on a voluntary basis) for a decade or so, as until this year there was no impact standard by regulation.

Of all the cars they tested between 1997 and 2007, ONLY the smart fortwo (first generation version that I have) passed the test. ONLY the smart.

You can be an armchair engineer if you like, but if you don't know what specific measures Mercedes-Benz took in designing the car, its restraint systems, its crash management systems and the special steel-shelled seats that are in it, you will only look foolish when predicting that a rusty old Honda would do better
crx pollution & gas mileage http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...ef.jsp?id=6410
'smart' pollution and gas mileage http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx...Field=Findacar

Got you beat by 1600lbs of co2.

it's very handy to be able to borrow my fathers 8ft step ladder without having to buy a $30,000 truck. Bring a Christmas tree home from the lot. yadda yadda

looks like i bet wrong with the rear end saftey.

though this doesnt look so good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-...eature=related

lol man that thing is disgusting, it makes a metro look good
__________________

white90crxhf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2008, 07:54 PM   #73
Registered Member
 
Mike T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 321
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by white90crxhf View Post
Got you beat by 1600lbs of co2.
No, you MAY have someone with a gasoline smart car beaten on carbon dioxide; my cdi is ahead of you.

But "Officially" the USA does not consider carbon dioxide to be pollution. NOx, HC, CO, PM, THAT is pollution. So let's see the comparison of those.

Any stepladder would fit easily in my car....with the top down.
__________________
2008 Mercedes-Benz B 200
2006 smart fortwo BRABUS Canada 1 cdi cabriolet
2005 smart fortwo cdi pulse cabriolet
1966 Peugeot 404 Coupe Injection
Mike T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2008, 09:31 PM   #74
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 23
Country: United States
Yeah, but can the Smart carry a deerstand, rifle, shotgun, backpack two pairs of boots, knife, box of 30.30 & two more of 12GA #1 & 00 buckshot... and still have a back seat for extra clothers & gear? AND get 35+mpg?

i really like the ideas of a hybrid or VERY efficient newer car... but they're aren't worth it, yet. Not even close.
__________________
95 Escort Wagon
94 Tracer Wagon
37.88 mpg mixed
yellowtail3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 04:10 PM   #75
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 125
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
No, you MAY have someone with a gasoline smart car beaten on carbon dioxide; my cdi is ahead of you.

But "Officially" the USA does not consider carbon dioxide to be pollution. NOx, HC, CO, PM, THAT is pollution. So let's see the comparison of those.

Any stepladder would fit easily in my car....with the top down.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089
Quote:
For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. As a result, diesel engines account for an estimated 26 percent of the total hazardous particulate pollution (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in our air, and 66 percent of the particulate pollution from on-road sources. Diesel engines also produce nearly 20 percent of the total nitrogen oxides (NOx) in outdoor air and 26 percent of the total NOx from on-road sources. Nitrogen oxides are a major contributor to ozone production and smog.
lol something that supposedly is warming our planet must be a pollutant, i mean our governments wouldn't lie to us would they?

i really doubt you want a 12ft step ladder in your car
white90crxhf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 06:50 PM   #76
Registered Member
 
Mike T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 321
Country: United States
Ahh but you were slagging the new gasoline version, so let's stick to that comparison, shall we? And I want to see recent smog check results from your car! Enquiring minds want to know.

The smart cdi has an oxydation catalyst and does not smoke, though it does produce more PM than any (new) gas engine that's not burning any oil. Its EGR ensures that NOx is also far, far lower than old school diesels. But that too is still higher than a (new) gas engine.

Anyway, let's look again at the aesthetic arguments. You may not know this, but there are only two automobiles in the permanent collection ot the Museum of Modern Art in NYC:
  • 1947 Cisitalia 202
  • smart car

Yes, the smart car! I don't think the CRX was even on their short list
__________________
2008 Mercedes-Benz B 200
2006 smart fortwo BRABUS Canada 1 cdi cabriolet
2005 smart fortwo cdi pulse cabriolet
1966 Peugeot 404 Coupe Injection
Mike T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 08:11 PM   #77
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
Hello -

I went looking for crash test results, but this is all I could find :

http://www.crashtest.com/mercedes_benz/index.htm
Attachment 1201

http://www.crashtest.com/honda/index.htm
Attachment 1202

And here's more grist for the mill :

57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/auto...c_hf/index.htm
Quote:
Today's consumers also expect safety. In the 1980s, car companies would sell cars that got one-star or two-star crash test ratings. Numbers like that would now cause car companies fits. Four out of five stars is considered the minimum acceptable rating.

The modern Civic has airbags front and side, electronic stability control and built-in crash protecting structures in the body. (See correction.)

Even the CRX's biggest fans wouldn't relish the thought of getting into a wreck in one of those cars. While actual crash test results are not available, even a Honda (HMC) spokesman admitted the car probably wouldn't have fared well by modern standards.

"Without the benefit of modern crash structure and extensive use of high strength steel, cars from two decades ago couldn't match the crash test performance of today's Hondas," said Honda spokesman Chris Naughton.

Increased safety, meaning more weight from airbags and crash structure, has meant lower fuel economy.

"It's kind of a classic engineering fight where safe cars compete with more fuel-efficient cars," said Todd Lassa, a writer for Motor Trend magazine and a CRX aficionado.
I would think that the 2nd gen CRX would be better than the 1st gen, but who knows?

CarloSW2
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	crash_smart.jpg
Views:	173
Size:	17.6 KB
ID:	1026   Click image for larger version

Name:	crash_crx.jpg
Views:	158
Size:	17.7 KB
ID:	1027  
__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2008, 10:53 PM   #78
Registered Member
 
Mike T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 321
Country: United States
How about this comparison:

1998 Civic: http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_1998/35.aspx

2000 smart: http://www.euroncap.com/tests/smart_...e_2000/29.aspx

2007 smart: http://www.euroncap.com/tests/smart_..._2007/303.aspx

I'd wager that the 98 Civic is a far better crash performer than a CRX, which is from two generations earlier.

Even the W202 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (1994-99) was only a two star car.
__________________
2008 Mercedes-Benz B 200
2006 smart fortwo BRABUS Canada 1 cdi cabriolet
2005 smart fortwo cdi pulse cabriolet
1966 Peugeot 404 Coupe Injection
Mike T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2008, 01:41 AM   #79
Registered Member
 
In N Out's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Country: United States
New US SMART Car is lame. I want Euro the verison.
In N Out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2008, 09:33 AM   #80
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 125
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
Ahh but you were slagging the new gasoline version, so let's stick to that comparison, shall we? And I want to see recent smog check results from your car! Enquiring minds want to know.

The smart cdi has an oxydation catalyst and does not smoke, though it does produce more PM than any (new) gas engine that's not burning any oil. Its EGR ensures that NOx is also far, far lower than old school diesels. But that too is still higher than a (new) gas engine.

Anyway, let's look again at the aesthetic arguments. You may not know this, but there are only two automobiles in the permanent collection ot the Museum of Modern Art in NYC:
  • 1947 Cisitalia 202
  • smart car

Yes, the smart car! I don't think the CRX was even on their short list
The wonderful state of Virginia does not test for smog where i live. Are we comparing your diesel for carbon dioxide and pollution or are we comparing the gasoline version for carbon dioxide and pollution? either way, it's a tie

lol have you ever seen modern art? It is not a compliment to be in their museum.


@CarloSW2

2nd gen crx made in 90 & 91 is different that 88 & 89, some more saftey standards had to be met in 90 & 91, possibly 89, though i believe they have differnt doors.
__________________

white90crxhf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuelly Android App - eehokie Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 07-14-2010 09:59 PM
Combined totals of all my vehicles? nizationpcs Fuelly Web Support and Community News 0 03-30-2009 07:41 AM
Sliding shelve unit Telco General Discussion (Off-Topic) 4 07-18-2007 05:23 PM
Mph Caps billynjoanna General Fuel Topics 2 06-10-2007 12:38 PM
Conversions zpiloto Fuelly Web Support and Community News 3 11-01-2006 11:42 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.