Place your bets on the smart...

[smartzuuk]

Haven't been around for a bit... but I also haven't forgotten. Just that December and january have been pretty cold and snowy months in Vancouver, BC... thus fuel economy isn't anything to aim for the stars with. I've been running snow tires at a paltry 28 PSI!

None-the-less... we managed to sell close to FIFTY scangauges to Canadian smart car owners... I have a couple left if anyone in Canada needs one. (SG II - new in box!)

I'll be updating my FE numbers soon. And you should see me drop several mpg at least.

[MetroMPG]

50 units? That's amazing! I bet you're a popular guy around the smart forum now.

[Peakster]

Originally Posted by Matt Timion

I'm surprised that the CD of the SMart is so high. Car engineers continue to amaze me when they build "high MPG" cars with horrible drag coefficients.

Isn't it really difficult to have good Cd with a short car? Long sedans can have nice gradual airflow over the car whereas air has to hit the front and trail off the rear of a short car much more abruptly. I'd be surprised to find any micro-car with a Cd of less than 0.32 or so without having the roof-line super low.

[Lug_Nut]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

As for what's better, decelerating in gear with engine braking & fuel cutoff, vs. freewheeling in neutral with the engine idling, sounds like a test or 2 is needed...

Deceleration in a high gear (at least down to the road speed/rpm at which the 'throttle'-by wire takes over for idle speed control) uses zero fuel and provides less engine brake effect than in a lower transmission gear.
The 'no fuel / less glide' or 'some fuel / longer glide' debate can be decided by determining if brake use is needed to limit speed gain.
If the brakes have to be applied to avoid exceeding a personal comfort level or speed, then use engine braking and zero fuel.
If the slope isn't steep enough to exceed this speed, then glide in neutral. The fuel at idle in neutral will be less than the amount of fuel necessary to prevent slowing while in gear.
To really maximize distance per fuel stop the engine (zero fuel use) and glide in neutral.
And remember that it is possible to coast down many hills at slow speed that require fuel to drive down at high speed.

[red91sit]

So, any updates on the 100 mpg goal?

[smartzuuk]

So..... Antoine as he is known here has managed a fairly lengthy 100+ mpUSg experiment this year... and possibly better, although I don't see much of a post about it anywhere.

I ended up loaning my smart car to a friend for 4 months (March to June). This pretty much ended thoughts of doing anything elaborate for experiments this year.

I've since sold this car and acquired a brand new one - a 2006 smart cabriolet cdi without air conditioning.

visit http://www.100mpg.ca to read more on that...

Anyhow, uh, I am planning on some mods to this car to carry on where I left off with the other. I achieved 2.8 L/100 km today on a trip to work. With the car more broke in now, it is possible to get really good numbers...

Oh, and the Scangauges sold like hotcakes this year. I think we have sold about 100 in Canada, mostly to smart owners..... I still get orders through my site.

Not mcuh new to report other than that. I don't have a gaslog up yet for the new car, but will probably start November 1.

[SVOboy]

Somewhere around there is a post about antoine's 100+ mpg fill, dunno where it is off the top of my head though.

Welcome back,

[smartzuuk]

He did two - I know the detail about the first 1000+ km tank which was 105 mpg.

But I see his gaslog entry shows another at 108 mpg, which I cannot locate details on. I will e-mail him. I presume a couple aero mods were employed.

So, I have my work cut out - I have achieved 105 mpg in a short trip, but need to plan a longer 1000+ km trip where I can regain the record.