© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-smart-car/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
In lots of places other than the United States, there is a plucky little automobile for sale called the Swatch Mercedes ART car, or SMART car for short. It gets an impressive 69 miles per gallon (diesel), yet it has the get-up-and-go of an average compact car. It is available in most of Europe, Asia, Australia, and in Canada, but it has not been marketed in the United States yet because it is contrary to Mercedes-Benz’s high-priced luxury stance in the U.S..
At first glance, it looks like a glorified golf cart. It’s even Mini-er than the Mini, so small that two SMART cars can share one standard parking space. It also looks a bit unsafe considering that this tiny, 1,600 pound two-seater is meant to share the road with the likes of the 6,400 pound Hummer H2. But it’s not quite as deathtrappy as one might think.
The rear-mounted three-cylinder turbocharged diesel engine only produces about forty horsepower, however the car is so lightweight that those forty horses go a lot farther than one would think. But it’s certainly no race car; it takes just short of twenty seconds to accelerate to 100 kilometers per hour (about 62 miles per hour), and it has a maximum speed of about 85 miles per hour due to an electronic speed governor. It’s geared with a clutchless 6-speed manual gearbox.
It has high-end braking and stability control features to help it keep its footing, and a few nice little features such as a system to prevent the car from rolling back when starting on an uphill slope. The passenger compartment is protected by a reinforced steel cage which its engineers call the “walnut,” allowing the car’s exterior to absorb much of the energy of an impact. The cage holds up to some brutal punishment… for example, in one test the cage remained intact after impacting a 20 ton block of concrete at 70 MPH (see video link below). But it’s not perfect, it has many of the same impact-related problems as other smaller cars. In Europe’s five-star crash rating system, the SMART car weighs in at three stars.
In Canada, the base SMART coupe can be had for about $12,100, which is about $9000 less than a base-model Toyota Prius, and about 10 miles per gallon more efficient. But the Prius’ zero-to-sixty time of about 10.5 seconds will smoke a SMART car, and the Prius gets five stars on the same crash-test rating system that gave the SMART car three stars. As for looks, they’re both equally goofy in design, but in distinct ways.
Mercedes plans to bring SMART cars to the U.S. someday soon, so if you’re looking for an inexpensive ultra-fuel-efficient car that is reasonably safe, it may become the best option, as long as you don’t mind the fact that it’s gutless.
More information:
Video of SMART car hitting 20-ton concrete block at 70MPH
SMART car homepage
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-smart-car/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Well even the dummy wasn’t stupid enough to crash in this vehicle. Interesting that they conduct the crash tests at more realistic speeds (70mph) where as the insurance institute only does 40kmph. Kinda speaks volumes on how poor the crash test standards are in America and how the automakers can barely pass these tests now. Let’s try the 70mph crash and see how the dummies fair.
I believe that I would walk before driving that, and it sounds like I still might get there faster.
These are perfect for city driving. Maybe not the best solution for those with large families, but more than enough room to go for groceries.
Normally I hate cars, but looking at this one makes me… happy.
If I could buy a car like this, I would buy a white one. I would dress up like Mork and drive around town honking my special “nanoo, nanoo” horn. Okay, I’ve just found a new life’s mission… buy an egg-mobile.
Haha… yeah, I’ve see a lot of these around now (*Lives in Australia*). Especially around my area (Brisbane) since the layout of the roads is not sufficient enough to handle the growing traffic conditions. Brisbane was never planned to be a major city and now that it is quite large, the road system just can’t take much more. A lot of main roads are narrow and twist and turn quite a bit. These cars are perfect for our roads, however. Espcially the inner-city area where it is damn near impossible to find a parking spot on the street that can accomodate a larger (normal) sized car.
These cars are short enough that in many places where parallel parking is available, one can simply pull the car’s nose right up to the curb. It must be much easier to get in and out of the parking spaces that way. Perpendicular parking.
I would definitely buy one of these as my daily commuter. Living in the Seattle area my commute rarely involves speeds greater than 50MPH and most typically is probably closer to 35MPH. I think one of these would be perfect and solve much of the parking issues I experience now on an almost daily basis.
Even more so I rarely have more than a single passnger with me and typically it is just myself.
I’ll gladly be the first tester in the US market…
Just registered to say this.
The SMART has been on the market for ages. By ages I mean years! Around 2 or 3 IIRC. Anyways, was a total hit at first, but the hype wore off and it’s down to a total flop. Kind of explains why MB wants to expand this project to the States.
Arcangel said: “Kinda speaks volumes on how poor the crash test standards are in America and how the automakers can barely pass these tests now. Let’s try the 70mph crash and see how the dummies fair.”
Actually, it doesn’t have anything to do with european crash standards. That video clip is from a BBC auto program called Fifth Gear, and had nothing to do with government testing.
aelfwyne said: “Actually, it doesn’t have anything to do with european crash standards. That video clip is from a BBC auto program called Fifth Gear, and had nothing to do with government testing.”
Being a pedant, the program is on Channel 5.
Just registered to correct some mis-information:
WC_ASD said: “[…] Anyways, was a total hit at first, but the hype wore off and it’s down to a total flop. Kind of explains why MB wants to expand this project to the States.”
I’ve travelled a fair bit around Europe and seen these things all over the place. Here, in Canada, there is a 6 month waiting list for them… I really don’t think that qualifies as a flop. Also, the reason that they haven’t been released in the US already is that they didn’t think that Americans would buy them because they all have their heads up their asses still buying humungous, gas guzzling, SUVs. Thankfully, the age of idiotic SUVs is soon to be a distant embarassing memory. The SMART car seems like a fairly reasonable, safe, fuel-efficient replacement.
Shad Larsen said: “I would definitely buy one of these as my daily commuter.
I’ll gladly be the first tester in the US market…”
Shad, i can’t applaud you enough.
In unison with dignon’s opinion, this car is certainly not a flop today although the business side of it had trouble getting off the ground at first. I find it has potential to become one of those lilliput classics like the bug and 2Chevaux(citroen). My opinion is, all major city centers in Europe (considering the midevil based layout) should ban all cars except this one and the austin mini (for the sports car fans). When are we going to see a hybrid version or all electric version of this car (how about a wind-up version to keep in tune with swatch watches…hehe)? In the end i find the SMART is quite simply, well…smart !
Available in America? If it is the people driving it will be the Crash Test Dummies.
For anyone that doesn’t like the look of this car, they also make a roadster version.
As mentioned before, these are great city-driving cars. I don’t think I’d like to be on a US interstate with one of these.
I heard mention of a SMART SUV as the first SMART in the US. General consensus is that this car is far too small for many Americans to buy.
I would like to know if one can purchae this car in, say, Canada, and just drive it across the boarder….and use it here in the U.S.? In the small town I live in, it would really be perfect.
In Portland, Oregon, the Ron Tonkin dealerships are trying to import these. They got screwed somehow by the European distributor and are trying to find someone else to get them from.
Personally – they aren’t the prettiest car, but if I’m getting the gas mileage these get, I’d rather look geeky than cool any day
I was moderately impressed with this car when it was displayed at the Chicago Auto-Show. Only complaint then was that for the price, it was woefully underpowered. And I thought it was kinda odd, the company was trying to drum up support to have an american release, yet they wouldnt let you sit in the car [unlike just about every other car there].
I saw the car again at Wired’s Next Fest, and I discovered why they didnt want you sitting in the car. I’m a slender guy, and only 5’10” but I was literally sucking knee caps in the passenger seat [the foot well is also inclined which was part of the problem].
I have no problem with small cars, but I gotta feel somewhat compfortable sitting in the seat.
I disagree with xeno, I think the SMART Cars are the best looking cars on the road these days. They certainly turn heads. I pass at least one every day on the street and invariably there is a couple of people peering in the windows.
I think its funny that Americans consider the car “too small” and never consider the fact that SUVs are *way* too big. Its quite a ridiculous society, really. How’s that war for oil going, anyway? Not so good, last I checked. Maybe saving gas might be a *good* thing.
You know… This would be great to have in America. I do not think, however, that it is appropriate to judge American society as “ridiculous” due to certain individuals that drive humungous gas-guzzelers. I agree that the Larger SUVs are going to phase out over the next decade (Hopefully), and with that will come Hydrogen and other fuel sources that are cleaner and more efficient.
Oh, and for a “Ridiculous Society” we have achieved quite a few more modern accomplishments than any other country…
And as for that War for Oil stuff, yeah… Media can be Very misleading, especially when reporting the negative = higher ratings to most…
And what is the score? 2235 American casualties to Insurgent 50,000+?
We lost almost 5 times as much on D-Day in ONE day and people are complaining about 2235 in just under 3 years… it sickens me to think if people had this attitude during WWII… You British would be speaking German, and you Aussies would be speaking Japanese if it were not for the USA…
Arcangel said: Kinda speaks volumes on how poor the crash test standards are in America and how the automakers can barely pass these tests now.
aelfwyne said: “Actually, it doesn’t have anything to do with european crash standards. That video clip is from a BBC auto program called Fifth Gear, and had nothing to do with government testing.”
Yes I know what you say is true but until real life speeds are used in tests (say 50mph or 80kmph for metric fans) standands for vehicles will just not improve. One of the reasons the insurance institute only does 40kmph testing is because all vehicles would fail if they went any faster. I believe the statistics state that the majority of vehicular accidents are head on crashes. In order to meet the 4okmph standard both cars could only go 20kmph toward each other. Not real world at all. The fact that this vehicle can withstand the 70mph crash with an intact passenger cage impressed me. I thought the car would have been a ready made coffin had I not seen this article.
In Canada there are quite a few of these vehicles roaming around. Not sure how they fair in our winters though.
dignon said: “…Also, the reason that they haven’t been released in the US already is that they didn’t think that Americans would buy them because they all have their heads up their asses still buying humungous, gas guzzling, SUVs. “
Now that’s some nasty generalization, if not a bit of a Napolean complex. I am an American and don’t own a gas guzzling SUV…in my teenage years I wanted one, but then I got older, wiser, and kid infested. I would love to own a SMART car, but I wouldn’t be able to drive it, unless they built them for tall people.
These cars are at least 5-6 years old in Europe; here’s a picture I took of one in Amsterdam in June 2000:
http://images.tuliphead.com/060900-adam/smartcar1
They were all over the place when I was there – not just in Amsterdam, but also in Paris and Berlin.
As an American whose head isn’t up her ass, I’d love to see these come to the US market. I think there’s a trend away from SUVs (at least, if GM teetering on the edge of bankruptcy is any indication) and towards the hybrid market. I live in San Francisco and I drive a small car (Mazda Miata) and I think these would be hugely popular here, where parking is at a premium and many people would love to be able to get themselves around town or across the bay to Oakland faster than public transit will get them. Not to mention that these are more affordable than hybrids, Minis or most other comparable cars. Given how people drive in CA I’d personally be a little nervous to take it out on the freeway, but it would certainly be suitable for cross-town errands and the like.
I’ve also seen the SMART cars in Japan about 5 years ago. I was visiting a mall in Okinawa and there was a SMART car on display. It was new at the time (at least to Japan) so it wasn’t quite for sale yet. However, I imagine that it would have had its competition cut out for it–a non-Japanese micro-car trying to make it big in micro-car mecca.
check this Smart Police car in greece
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d25/tieInterceptor/smart_cop.jpg
so cute!
I saw one of these this summer and considering most commutes are stop and start driving, I thought these were great . When I travel through the larger cities during rush hour I never seem to get going too fast that I would consider these overly dangerous. Now the highway is a different matter but the way I look at it the bulk of a persons mileage is probably driven under 60 KPH….IMHO
If I’m not mistaken, San Francisco has these available now – there is a car dealership (the name eludes me this afternoon…) on the corner of Van Ness and O’Farrell that has at least one yellow one for sale. IMHO they are very well styled little cars, but it may have been the shock of seeing one in a window flanked by a Tahoe and a H2 parked on the street. I’m not sure if they have more, but the dealership is a high-end European importer, so I would imagine the little thing isn’t cheap. However, whoever snags the thing has my eternal respect.
Will have some breaking news on the SMART car for US in a few days.
FYI, there are in fact, 4 versions of the SMART. The first, as shown above, is the City Coupe, a 2-seater, which comes with a hardtop, or as a cabriolet. Then there is the ForFour, which, as the name implies, a four door, 4-seater. It’s just a bit, not too much, longer than the Coupe. Next is the SMART Roadster, a longer, lower, wider, peppier 2-seat sportster. Finally is the weird, and wild Crossblade, a version of the Coupe with no top, no windshield, and no doors!
The standard engine in the Coupe is a 698cc, 50bhp gas engin, but that can be increased to 70 bhp. A 798cc, 40bhp diesel is also available. Maximum speed is 84mph, and giving 57mpg at that speed. The weight of the car is 720-750kg, depending on fitment.
At this time, Mercedes-Benz is not importing the to the US because the car has not been federally certified. M-B plans on bring the SMART line to the US sometime early next year. At a well equipped cost of less than $12,000USD.
To the writer above who saw a SMART in the US, I seriouly doubt that car was for sale. It could have been a car bought by the dealer for demo pruposes, or a gray-market car. But, at the moment, it is illegal to sell them in the US.
But that will soon change. I plan on buying one for myself.
they have been in london (where i live) forever! they are quite popular and really practicle when going round the small streets.
Dr.Grimgravy said: “… will come Hydrogen and other fuel sources that are cleaner and more efficient.
They are just developing an electric one and are going to maket them soon- i think.
Inside it is midly scary, because you feel like the smallest thing on the road. As they are so small you are much more upright, which is stranged. You are also much higher up than you would think.
You also need to remember the fact that in the majority of North American metropolises single drivers make up well over 80% of cars that you find on the roads. Cars like these are ingenious for commuters, especially in northern states/Canadian provinces where motorcycles are impractical due to the weather conditions that limit their use to 4-8 months of the year. Fuel efficient, space saving vehicles are definitely something that should become a much larger part of North American life, where we really should adjust to the reality of our existence. I mean the majority of American households that drive the supersized SUV’s are ones that also own more than one vehicle, So why can’t the other one be a runabout like the SMART? I understand the convenience of an SUV, having spent three years as the proud owner of a Jeep Grand Cherokee; however, when I wasn’t using that car for work I could easily have been cruising around in a much more energy efficient vehicle. I mean who really needs to drive 6400 pounds of vehicle to do their shopping for the week?
For anyone reading this still:
I sort of like the history of the SMART car. As a concept it was designed as a city driver that could, “hold two people and a case of beer.” This was later changed to a case of water, stupid political correctness. One of the more interesting features was supposed to be a paint job that would change colors as a low voltage current was applied to it. In other words, dial-a-color paint that let you choose the color of your car when ever you wanted. Oh, the fanciful thinking of concept cars.
Contrary to Robert Conner, there were only 3 models of SMART car produced, the Two-Four, Four-Four, and the Roadster. The Roadster was axed by Diamler-Chrysler about a year ago, and the Four-Four will stop being produced this year. The SMART cars have been pretty popular, but not popular enough to make it profitable. That was one of the main decissions in cutting the other two models. DCM has been considering bringing them over to the US for a few years, but has balked a number of times. A private auto-distributer named ZAP wanted to buy thousands of them for distribution in the US after all the legal and crash testing hurdles were over come, but DCM turned their order down. ZAP was finally able to get some cars, but not nearly as many as they wanted. DCM said they would make a decission by the end of the summer (2006) of whether they will bring the SMART cars over themselves.
Hurray for super long comments! One last rant:
I’m about as excited as the next to see 16-year-old Barbie, crusing down the highway in her Explorer, talking on her cell phone, but in many cases SUVs are the right choice, for the right people. I know many big families the NEED a Surburban to get everyone to and from somewhere together. Is it always full? No, but some people can’t afford a “shopping” car and a “family” car. It’s probably even more economical then driving the 5 SMART cars they’d need to go on vacation. In other words, does everyone need to drive an SUV that has one? Of course not, but calling everyone with one a pollution loving glutton with their head up their a$$ is inapropriate. It’d be like calling everyone who drives a Prius a hemp weaving, terrorsit loving, organic, stinky hippy, and we all know that’s not true either.
When I crossed the pond a couple of years ago, I saw one of these cars in Inverness. Hehe, I wanted to pick it up and put it in my pocket.
It would never fly here in the south. I stand 5’11” and am about average height for my area. H&ll fire, I saw one of my friends driving a import T-top, with his head sticking out and looking over the roof (girlfriends car).
On top of that, there are way too many of us practical jokers here. Leave your car parked (as opposed to leaving it driving, I suppose) while shopping, come out and find it in the back of a pick up truck, or some other place that you can’t drive it from. This was not an uncommon occurrence, back when there was a lot of VW Bugs floating around.
smart golf cart? What’s this thing used for?
I have actually driven one of these things.
My Mercedes was in the dealer for servicing. When it was learned that my car would have to be in the shop for several days awaiting parts, the dealer gave me the keys to a Smart coupe. I returned it the very next day.
It was HORRIFYING! We have a sports car (and I drove a TR-6 for 15 years), so small cars do not ordinarily unnerve me, but this thing was terrifying not only to drive, but to ride in as well. The “semi-automatic” transmission is a joke…it is more work than a regular manual transmission to operate, and much less straightforward. Your sense of safety is non-existent…I felt like I was in the front car of a roller coaster. And the noise!!! Dear God, you could go deaf driving that thing! It sounded like an unmuffled lawn mower engine was mounted just behind myhead!
No thanks! I, who does not care much for being pedestrian, would rather walk than get into one of those noisy little upright coffins again. {{shudder}}
I have seen SMART cars in England for a few years now. They very fast on the Motorways and easy to handle in the tight parking spots in England. The sport version is REALLY SMART. These vehicals need to be in the USA. Stop thinking big and wasteful. It’s not like you need a hummer to go to work.
In the long sad history of bad ideas, the SMART concept has to be a benchmark. Originally the brainchild of a still-born corporate merger (Swatch and Mercedes “SwatchMercedesART” get it?) the car is part of a total transportation system designed, in my humble opinion, to do nothing but profit from urban plight and the myth of automotive democratization.
The car is an aberration: it makes all the right marketing noises: recycled materials, lead free components, fuel economy, blah blah blah. Buy a Smart and save a whale. You automatically get half price transportation on ferries and trains for the little horror, plus coupons that let you rent one cheap from AVIS anywhere they have hordes of them throughout Europe in case a Peugeot isn’t comfortable enough, or you just feel like pubishing yourself. But like many marketing plans this one falls down in some very important areas:
Pollution: (let’s not even get into the visual aspects of that) It takes three SMARTS to get the same number of people one Toyota Corolla will carry into town. Three times as many tires, brake pads, tanks of gas etc… To say nothing of adding two more cars to urban congestion swlling urban heat generation and adding to the myth of Global warming. In an era where tax money is being redirected throughout Europe to re-introduce clean public transportation systems: hydrogen powered busses, electric cars, propane powered vehicles, and trams (yes, trams) these little beasts fly in the face of every publicly funded effort at decompressing traffic problems in cities.
Utility: Two people and groceries for two people will fit in a SMART. No luggage. Oh, I know some bright spark designed some slick suitcases to go in the minuscule trunk but, as the car is so uncomfortable on the open road (you start looking for a wall to crash into over 50 MPH to ease the pain in your ass) no one takes them out on weekends, so you never need the luggage. The car is designed so that even a dog has to go in the trunk, or on the lap of the passenger. It doesn’t matter though; most SMART owners apparently don’t know anyone else foolish enough to get in with them, so they drive alone.
Safety: This is a bad joke. They are not exactly banned on the highways, but I have yet to see even a For Four out on the open road, let alone a For Two, and never the world’s slowest sports car -the Coupe. The fact is that just like Trabants were composted by fast-traveling Merecedes on the Autobahns after reunification in ’89, SMARTS run the very real risk of being pureed by faster moving traffic from every direction. This is partly due to their lack of power, but mostly their inherent instability: with a nearly over square footprint the car is happier going sideways than straight ahead. A passing 40 ton semi can, will, and has flipped the little crates end over end, their ecologically minded passengers being turned to bloody pulp inside that nice stiff cage.
Stress levels: You never see ads for SMARTS racing down winding roads on clear autumns days, or pulling happy families in trailers on vacations. Real people buy real cars to do these things. The SMART is designed to spend most of it’s time stuck in packs of it’s kindred wasting fuel at idle. At least hybrids don’t. When not parked in the hopeless gridlock caused by too many of them out there being ecological, they’re jammed any and every which way into nooks and crannies usually meant for two wheeled or pedestrian traffic. It is not an uncommon sight to see a SMART pull blatantly up to a curb and park itself nose to a building, blocking everyone. Another common sight is two of them in one parking space. Looks cute, until you realize that with no bumpers, there is no room for maneuvering in and out without damage.
No, the SMART is anything but. It will not be a success in the USA as soon as the Americans realize it is useless for anything other than short smog-inducing urban jaunts; is impossible to drive cross country (At least a Yugo could do that if it stayed running), and won’t carry the wife AND the golf clubs out to the links.
SWATCH pulled out of the venture early, leaving Mercedes to go it alone. Mercedes will probably test market the non-diesel version in the USA, but it will stay what it is: an irritating little anacronysm, driven by egocentric mouth breathers who subscribe to the theory that one big car is bad, but a thousand little ones are good. The standard comment on SMARTS in Europe is wry indeed: Only idiots drive them.
similar to the BMW isetta
http://www.whirlingpool.com/isetta/history/history.htm
i want that car.
i live and work in the uk
i have driven the 900cc turbo smart car and was very impressed
i work for a tuning company as a mechanic and saw a smart car with a suzuki gsx 1300 engine fitted we had to restrict the car to 150mph as it got unstable after 155mph this car was fetured in british tuning mag MAX POWER
as for being a merc LMAO there isnt a single part of this car thats built by mercedes only sold by them and they dont put there name to it anywhere
Since they are less than the cargo capacity of my pickup, I will buy one and use it like a lifeboat:
In case my truck ever breaks down I can kick this little thing out of the bed of my truck and go for help. Maybe call it an ‘escape pod’.
There aint no other way I would caught dead in this lil P.O.S.
Nope.
The “SMART” car and many others like them are intended to deter the consumer motorist from purchasing them. PLEASE READ TO BE ENLIGHTENED. The invention and promotion of these vehicles is actually a tactic used by the BIG 3, others and OIL Companies to try to discourage the implementation of more andvaced technologies. Sound ridiculous? Keep reading.
In other words, most “fuel-efficient” cars are under-designed to seem impractical, small, boxy and just plain ugly by no coincidence at all. This is done quite intentionally as a means to thwart the feasibilty of something better. The fact is, practical, reasonably sized vehicles can and have been designed with fuel efficiency in excess of 150 MPG.
Think for a minute. Does a fuel efficient vehicle have to look like a golf cart? Wouldn’t something AERODYNAMIC have greater fuel efficiency? It sure would. That’s why sports cars are designed that way – to get the best performance possible from any given amount of power. In fact, most technologies employed on sports cars would serve fuel-efficient cars even better. High flow intake and exhaust, low aerodynamic drag force and the use of turbos all contribute to performance efficiency.
Imagine a sleek & sporty fuel-efficient car. I’m certain there would be a market for such a car. What if it could get you over 150 mpg on the highway? Sound impossible? It’s not.
Let’s look at this problem from a feasibility standpoint.
Objects in motion stay in motion. This is true if you neglect energy losses. The two enemies of a rolling vehicle are Aerodynamic Drag and rolling friction (due to bearings and tire hysterisis). If you focus your efforts reducing these frictional forces, you’ve tackled most of the problem.
So… make the damn thing aerodynamic – a C_d of around .2 – .25 is very feasible. The frontal projection area of a vehicle really depends on the need. Frontal projection area is simply the area of a car that faces the air – what you would see if the car were coming at you. A semi-truck has a large frontal projection area, and a motorcycle has a small one. Aerodynamic drag is directly proportional to this area. Drag is also proportional to the square of velocity. So a car going 100 MPH sees 100 times the drag force as when it travels 10 MPH.
Potential reductions in rolling friction have been overlooked on the whole. Michellin has designed a set of tires that has about 35% greater rolling efficiency than others, and there is still significant room for improvement. Tires capable of higher pressures would also dramatically reduce rolling resistance. Improved hub bearing design is another simple target.
Then there is the power plant and drivetrain. Currently, the internal combustion engine is only about 30% efficient, in good cases. Energy is lost to heat transfer, internal friciton, noise, flow restriction, incomplete combustion, exhaust gas heat & flow… have I left anything out? It would not be difficult for any major engine developer to address each of these issues systematically.
Heat energy can be recaptured using integrated steam systems, turbos, proper insulation. Noise can be reduced using tighter machining tolerances. Friction reductions are realized almost every year; new “stealth” coatings commonly used on high performance engines would do wonders for a smaller engine. Using turbos for instances when a lot of power is needed and bypassing them on intake and exhaust during low demand would save considerable fuel. You don’t need a lot of power to sustain speed, so why would you maintain the same engine displacement? The old concept of the steam engine can be coupled with the common 4 stroke to produce a steam/gasoline hybrid. BMW has done a bit with this, but their approach doesn’t integrate the two systems very well. There is a 6 stroke engine with an additional stroke that uses water to generate steam, both propelling and cooling the engine simultaneously.
ENERGY LOSS TO BRAKING:
This has already been identified with gas/electric hybrids. The concept is simple. When you use your brakes, you basically cancle all the energy used to get your vehicle moving and effectively waste the fuel it took to do so. Hybrids use regenerative breaking to recapture some of this lost energy using electric generators as brakes. Now before we get carried away with adding all kinds of over-complicated systems to any proposed vehicle, consider simplification. Toyota’s synergy drive applied the same concept and is a good example of simplifying a system; it uses regen braking through the transmisison. Older inferior concepts of regen braking actually had independant generators in the wheels – simply a result of the funtional fixedness of some old engineers who were used to putting brakes in the wheels.
Let’s face it. We have the technology. We have the know how. We know how to do it cheap. What we lack is public awareness and congressmen who will effectively represent the people.
The concept of a fuel efficient vehicle now seems undesireable. Their ultimate aim is both supply and demand control of oil. The auto industries and oil / energy companies work in accord to only allow / promote acceptable levels of efficiency and their profits are guaranteed.
In the mid 80’s, Honda made a version of the CRX that got a more impressive 70 MPG, even without hybrid technology. Where are we now. Looks to me like we’re moving backwards.
Me again.
I forgot to mention weight as a contributing factor to rolling friction. Rolling friction is equal to a friction factor multiplied by the weight of the vehicle.
Reduce the weight and you reduce the friction and thus the efficiency (and performance). Cars are heavier than they need to be. Aluminum, earths most abundant metal, has a stronger strength/weight ratio than steel. This material would be a good choice, but most structural and crash test engineers know that they are capable of designing something lighter, stronger and more impact resistant.
There are other ways of counteracting the friction due to the weight of a vehicle. Race cars have downforce. Airplains rely on aerodynamic lift. A car with dynamic aerodynamics, though admittedly unusual and perhaps expensive, could generate both downforce and lift according to vehicle stability demands. On a long straightaway, an aerodynamic flap could adjust to produce lift, thus reducing the vehicles effective frictional weight. You would want to consider tradeoffs between such gains and reduction in trajectory C_d. Conversely, during maneuvering and high-speed turns, a control system could relay a signal to cause the flaps to produce downforce. It could all be made to work seemlessly and look pretty cool, though the concept may sound overcomplex. That it may truly be.
More on recapturing energy, seamlessly and simply.
You need a way of storing useful energy in the most applicable and critical forms to a vehicle.
A hybrid uses a battery. There are other types of “batteries” or energy storage devices, though.
I’ll list a few to get your creative juices flowing:
Capacitors, various Gas Tanks/Resiviors and gasses, Hydraulic Accumulators (all sorts), Springs (all sorts), Gravity.
Any and all of these can be practically linked to a continuously variable transmission in much the same way as toyota’s “mysterious synergy drive” (a generator keyed into a transmission with some controls).
Of course, after you design and manufacture your 300 mpg family vehicle, remember, gas prices will still go up. There are many low demand vehicles whose practical use would be practically impractical if most, but not all vehicles got 300 mpg. For instance, vehicles that get 10 mpg. They use the same fuel, and due to a drop in demand for oil (though still inelastic) prices would rise due to this inelasticicty. The guy driving a hummer would now be paying about 20 bucks a gallon, and would basically be going nowhere. The boat owner couldn’t afford to port. The truck driver would continue masturbating at gas stations, but he would buy less beef jerky. Industry would slow.
So, is it an irresposible move to do what seems like a good idea? On a large scale, perhaps – even though it could mean our planet’s destruction. On a small scale, I think it would be a fun project. I might get shot though. Sniped. Wiped. Good thing I keep several lock boxes and leave trails.
I digress…
So what is our alternative??? Proprietary alternative fuels! We’ve got to make the transition soon, and we’ve got to try to do it seemlessly. Kudos to GM on their Flexfuel idea. That should at least help to facilitate some sort of transition. The Big oil companies are still happy because they have a stake in alternave fuels, stocks stay stable, Arabs get left behind…
Me AGAIN.
Correcting my loser self. You increase performance and efficiency by reducing weight.
I am suprised at most people. Bigger is stupid. Pay all your money to the oil barons. I spend 40 a month on fuel with my smart. How many dummies are spending hundreds? MILLIONS! GO AHEAD! Work more so you can spend more! Sounds like a cocaine addiction. 50,000 people die every day in this world due to poverty. Drive something Smart and give the hundreds you save to charity. Millions of people would be given a chance. Open your eyes. Do you call yourselves christian? Time to walk the walk. One more thing. Why would the U.S. epa ban the diesel Smart from coming in to your country when it uses many times less fuel than most of the viehicles being driven on the streets today? Give me strength…..
One more thing. I do have a larger truck too. I just use it when needed. It runs on Propane, cheap cheap cheap. Also my sibling was killed on the hyway by a semi. He was in a big luxury car. 20 tons against 1 or 2 or 4 tons dosen’t matter. You loose! Everytime! I’m sick of seeing folks driving these big stupid autos by themselves running errands. Loose the obsesive pride, be responsible.
Actually those are more spacious than they look. My boss drives one and he is almost 190cm.
You shouldn’t plan on tranporting too much luggage, but the thing is ideal for commuting or shopping groceries. Especially when parking space is an issue.
Well for something that was supposed to be just a deterrent, they’ve sold quite nicely ;-)
Well, the SMART has come to the US. The reviews are good, or at least they are trying to make them sound good. But looking at the figures, I’m not impressed at all.
It has a bigger engine to meet Americans’ expectations for power. That’s fine. It still has a pretty small engine. And how much mileage does this little car get? 38 mpg. In that weak little car? 38? That’s it? Where is all that fuel going? My Toyota Echo gets 40, and that thing has twice as many seats and at least 3x more storage space.
Then there’s the transmission. Instead of a normal automatic, they rigged up this weird automated manual transmission, which is built like a standard, but has a computer-controlled clutch. It’s said to be pretty jerky when shifting, which you’ll be doing a lot of with that 6 speed. that’s not going to be comfortable in traffic, which is what this city car was meant for.
Then there’s the price. For less of a car, I expect to pay less. Not with this thing. The US price is over $13,000. What?? That’s the same as the Honda Fit. I COULD BUY A TOYOTA YARIS for $9,800. And that Yaris is faster, bigger, cheaper, better fuel economy, and twice as many seats as this SMART.
In conclusion, the Smart car is anything but. And yet there are over 1,000 American suckers on the waiting lists. They probably want it to be the first and make a fashion statement or something. To me, this cars says ” I’m too stupid to buy a Toyota Yaris or a Nissan Versa or a Honda Fit, which are all better and cheaper than this hideous thing.” The Toyota Aygo is coming to the US next year, and it’s going to smoke this thing in every way imaginable.
Smart car + Hayabusa engine = Smartuki
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPQIizRp9ck