Why is such a tiny car rated at only 33 and 41? Or is this 'good' mileage?

US smart car gets at least 10MPG less that it gets in Europe because idiot US regulators had to dumb it down to pass these tests.

My '04 Civic gets 35/40mpg...why isn't this tiny car better?

Tucki,
Is this true? What do you mean by "dumb it down"? These may be true statements, but you need to include some detail on here if you are going to say something that controversial, or something that people like me might be interested in reading about.

In their story last weekend about the Smart, the NYTimes was also underwhelmed by the mileage numbers. Hybrids definitely perform better than that, and even my '01 Suzuki sedan runs about 29/35! This car needs to pack more punch at the pump if it hopes to amount to more than a passing fad in the US.

To Elydog, the smart and most other all new car models are now rated by a new EPA method that assumes things like 70 MPH average highway speed instead of 55, it was also done because the Toyota Prius became notorious among test drivers and owners for falling well short of its 60 city 50 highway MPG estimate (the EPA now claims something like a 45 MPG average which closer reflects real world numbers). I think the initial numbers I heard on this car were something like 40 city 50 highway, which I believe is similar to what the old Chevy GEO made (the one that had a 1.0 liter 3 cylinder just like the smart does).

I know you guys take some sort of perverse pleasure in slamming Detroit but they have made attempts at these kind of vehicles in the past, although those weren't distinctive looking trend vehicles like Smart and Prius. I keep on being annoyed when I hear people slam Detroit auto makers because some one else brings a car in from the other side of the Atlantic or pacific and 'proves Detroit wrong', the fact is these things were born and bred in $5 a gallon (or more) markets. If Toyota and Mercedes (makers of Prius and Smart) were half as environmentally conscious and genius as you seem to think they are then why did Toyota just introduce a bigger heavier 380 horsepower Tundra to compete with Detroit trucks in the middle of the gas crisis? (the thing is even a flaming piece of junk with more mechanical problems and recalls than you can shake a stick at, so much for Japanese quality.) And why has Mercedes been fined more for CAFE fuel economy violations than any Detroit auto maker (none of which are actually fined)? (OK they are fined because corporate average fuel economy doesn't affect Detroit's giant fleets which offset a few 500 horsepower Corvettes with large numbers of cobalts etc., and Benz probably won't sell enough Smarts to make up for their 500 hp AMG models). Also before slamming Detroit you should take note of the idea of a trend car, and also the right car at the right time, and its worth mentioning that even in Europe Mercedes has never made any money selling Smart cars, they have lost billions and and taken 2/3rds of their Smart models out of production, so while it may be selling well right now its hardly proof that Detroit was wrong all along about making money on small cars (and if sales do here what the did in Europe after the first few years it may actually prove them right).

Correction: 'what they did in Europe' but you get my drift.

"According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, fuel efficient electric-gasoline cars like the Toyota (TM) and Prius and Honda (HMC) Civic have saved a grand total of 5.5 million barrels of oil over the past eight years," Report: Hybrid Cars' Low Impact on Oil Imports, Green Wombat, 06/21/07.

...Nice to see MZ all foaming at the mouth here...

"... its hardly proof that Detroit was wrong all along about making money on small cars ..."

Likely here that the automakers' "problems" with the new Lithium Battery are, in all actuality, pusedo-problems...

Hey MLW, I just report the facts as I hear them, if you want to know about the problems smart has in Europe and how it may well fail here in the long run look the smart up on the Autoline Detroit web site. When did I foam at the mouth? I'm just a liberal car guy who likes buying union/American made vehicles of the four cylinder variety, and of course American made t-shirts with godless and left wing messages (check out Northernsun its awesome!). I consider myself well read and versed in automotive matters and I just call them like I see them, and in the near future I think we need more R&D into lithium ion batteries in this country, and to try to shift from production of home heating oil to diesel (and make diesel four cylinders to run at 40+ MPG on the stuff, as they do in Europe which currently has a 35 MPG average fuel economy).

I'm thinking about filing a federal lawsuit (I can just drop it in the mail with copies for the US Attorney and Attorney General... (get stuff back...)) demanding a grand jury investigation into "The Murder of the Electric Car."

In case you're interested here's the form (using numbered paper (plenty of sample complaints on the net)):

Name
Address
Tele.
E-Mail

Plaintiff Pro Se

(centered, starting at line 8) THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (or whichever district)
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION (or ...)

Name, (on left) (on right) DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT (below it:) DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff,

V.

US Attorney (plus his/her name)

(centered) JURISDICTION

28 U.S.C. 1331

42 U.S.C. 1983 Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights

(centered) INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

The Plaintiff is the victim of crime complained of here, and he/she lives in this venue.

(centered) INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiff in the above-entitled lawsuit , Your Name (hereafter "the Plaintiff"), alleges that certain U.S. automakers are committing crime to keep entirely electric cars off the street, accordingly the Plaintiff requests the US Attorney to inform the grand jury of these allegations.

Pertinent here are:

"In appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." (Italics) Conley v. Gibson, 355 US 41, 41-46 (1975).

"[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is 'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Id., at 47 (footnote omitted). (italics) Leatherman, et al. v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit et al., 507 U.S. 163 (1993).

(centered) COMPLAINT

It is common knowledge that Telsa Motors produces an electric car that can travel 225 miles on a single charge (charge time 3.5 hours, estimated battery life of over 100,000 miles). In fact, despite long waiting lists for its EV1 (an entirely electric vehicle), GM willfully and maliciously criminally cancealed all leases for such. Here the Plaintiff contends that GMs above act and the concerted failure of the major U.S. Automakers to offer an entirely electric car together are probative facts that establishe that a criminal conspiracy is at work.

Pertinent here are:

"It shall be the duty of each grand jury ... to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. ... Any attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from another person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such offense ...", (italics) The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title 18 USC Sect. 3332.

"That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, that person willfully became a member, that one of the members during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or orvert acts), that such overt act was knowingly committed at or about the same time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some objective of the conspiracy. (italics) Title 18 USC Sect. 371, Conspiracy.

(centered) CONCLUSION

The whys and hows of the conspiracy by major Automakers to derail mass-production of the entirely electric car is the purview of the grand jury. However, injury and standing are pertinent here. Everyone has a valid interest in stoping major corporations from conspiring to commit crime, and to stop government offcials from turning a blind eye to crime. See, " ... one district court has held that any person has standing to enforce this duty." (italics) See In re Grand Jury Applications, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y.) (granting mandamus to enforce Sect. 3332) Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (DC Cir. 1997). Actually, in (italics)Sergeant the Court overlooked how Heck v. Humphrey, 512 US 477 (1994) prohibits challenges of a state court conviction, as that Plaintiff's complaint attempted. Furthermore, Moore v. Valder (DC Cir 1995) explains that there is a significant difference in prosecution type duty from investigation type duty.

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Dated___

Signed____

Name
ect.

Hey the Tesla is fantastic, if your willing to pay $90,000 which is of course only a little under three times what the average car costs. The cost of the thing brings up the cost problem with current lithium ion batteries, yes you can power great vehicles with them but who the hell can afford it? If the leader in mass production of hybrids Toyota continues to refuse to move toward more advanced batteries then how can mass production bring the cost down enough to make the Chevy Volt and more advanced vehicles affordable for everyone? You attack GM for what was obviously a stupid move, and then you hold up car that no one can afford as prof that they were criminally wrong? Gimme a break.

My point with the Telsa was simply how far current battery technology has come...

MZ, do you really think that GM and others should be allowed to conspire to "kill the electric car"--this with complete "immunity"?

"If the leader in mass production of hybrids Toyota continues to refuse to move toward more advanced batteries than how can mass production bring the cost down ..."

Remember how Sony recalled all those lithium batterys--because of an inexplicably lousy production technique that "realized" an inferior product...

Come on now Mikey--we don't need you to slam the electric car--GM. Sony, ect., ect., ect., they're expert murderers...

People (a grand jury...) need to consider the Technology Review (published by MIT) article titled Are Lithium-Ion Electric Cars Safe? The use of a type of battery with a history of overheating raises safety concerns: "Laptops equipped with lithium-ion batteries occasionally overheat and catch fire. This has some people concerned about the use of this type of battery in new electric sports cars ..."

Again, in fact, the batteries in question caght fire because of "mistakes' in the manufacturing process...

Like this should be read Anatomy of a Murder (of the Electric Car).

Doesn't take much of an imagination as to why... Not with $4 a gallon gasoline...!!!

I'm wondering how much it's worth in increased advertising revenues for the leader in the fight against drilling in the pristine Alaskan Oil fields...

Wouldn't that be "neat" if some high-faluting left-wing Publisher just came right out and said: "Heck, I'm not planning on visiting that remote corner...

Wait a second what are you saying with regard to the lithium ion battery? That is what powers the over priced Tesla after all, (and it is Tesla by the way not Telsa, its named after the dude who invented alternating current and the Tesla coil). As for 'killing' the electric car I think GM made a dumb move, I've heard people at the top of GM say that in hindsight they know it was a dumb move, but I don't necessarily think that thats criminal. If the car companies had really been smart they would have all followed predictions of peak oil more closely and dumped way more money into R&D for fuel efficiency and alternative propulsion during the '90s, but lack of foresight is a falling caused by human stupidity not conspiracy.

I am real stupid--to possibly expect that "this stinking ilk" would ever fess up...

Anyone else ever get to feeling real deep..., thinking about how the rich are never rich enough..., and what this means to the rest of us...?

Isn't it wierd how the rich are the criminals here--and yet they point to the poor as the cause of all the problems...

Again, as Jesus said..., it's stupid to exploit people and then get mad when it comes time to reap what you sow (no..., not the RAPIST PIGS--you fool...)

"...human stupidity not conspiracy."

You know..., if one wants to get down to brass tacks, lots of innocent people are subjected to a grand jury investigation--not every criminal case is all cut and dry--this is not a real big deal and, certainly, it is better to be safe than sorry...

Besides there is lots of evidence... I read this one case where it went to the CA Supreme Court on the issue of the Prosecutor informing the jury that they could convict on NO evidence at all... (guy's wife was found hanged in the shower--she was known to be extremely suicidal, the only "evidence" was a prior domestic violence, but if a prior is too prejudicial it's not supposed to be allowed...)

In fact, prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity from liability (means unless deliberate crime was committed...), precisely because they need to feel free to take to task people who aren't always actually going to be guilty...

That's the thing with cops and robbers--people have a presumption of innocence on the part of law enforcement officials...

There was that case where D.C. Corrections officers were blatantly raping the women prisoners, then came the "big stink", but five years later there was another instance of blatant crime--a guard making a woman prisoner dance naked on top of a table...

And I read an article about custodial rape; the writer was amazed that so many women prisoners were "daring" enough to report it...

Of course, I'd be happy as a pig in a poke if The Pigs and Co. would simply just come right out and tell us their agenda...

(Or merely stop trying to kill me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

While I clearly don't know as much about Detroit as MZ, an engineer at GM told me years ago how they were looking at problems. A push rod engine is more efficient producer of horsepower than overhead cam (seemed reliability takes a spot in a very crowded back seat). Hybrids add roughly 10-12% to gas mileage (should be used to increase fleet horsepower). And the primary problem for battery powered cars was heat (how to keep batteries cool). There is about $3000 of extra cost producing a $70,000 car vs. a $15,000 car. Gasoline was running about $1/gallon. Detroit did exactly as expected to maximize profits. First make vehicles as heavy and expensive as possible (an extra 40K per unit profit, and give small biz owners access to farm equipment credit based on vehicle weight). Here is the question for MZ: How much of Detroit’s operating environment is of their making? Do they fight any changes to CAFÉ and safety standards in a dogmatic fashion? Did they help get CAFE exemptions for "Trucks" marketed as commuter vehicles (eg. PT Cruiser)? Was the extra $5 per bumper too much to save customer insurance premiums? Would Raising fleet mileage to 30mpg cost trillions, even though the technology was sitting on the shelf waiting to be applied? Is GMs Volt announcement a sign of a shift in mindset towards more efficiency and reliability, or is the business model the same regardless of motor?

WOW ! A combined 37 mpg !
Unbelievable ! Amazing !
errrr wait... no it's not.
------------------------
A car with as many compromises as this should be getting 60-80 mpg. Sure- it's 'neet-o' - but it's not impressive.
------------------------
I'll pick-up a Civic and happily haul my family across the country if need be. Not with the 'Smart Car'.

This car's target demographic should be urban d.i.n.ks* that have one parking spot in the condo pad and the absolute need for 2 cars.

(*dual income no kids)