I have been averaging 65MPG in my Smart CDI

Lug_Nut said:

Yeah, only 54.82. That's one of the reasons I sold it.
My other single tank bests
1996 (red) Passat sedan: 67.54 (921.9 mi on 13.65)
1984 Golf: 48.61 (475.2 on 9.775) I sold that one pretty quick.
1996 (black) Passat sedan: 74.40 (744.0 on 10.0)
1996 (red) Passat wagon: 62.98 (1732 mi on 27.50) and yes, this IS a single tank-full on a B4V.
1997 (GLX to TDI) Passat wagon: I can't locate that log book at the moment. I know the lifetime average wasn't as good as the red wagon. My single best in that one was 75.364 but I have only that and not the volume of fuel used, so the single tank best is unknown until I locate the book.
1997 (green) Jetta: 59.65 (596.5 on 20.0) That was a partial fill followed by a later top-off, so it's "a tank+" and not one tank.
The 2005 Passat previously mentioned.
1995 Cabrio: 57.25 best, but the volume / distance is in the same missing book as the white wagon.
2002 (blue) Jetta: 68.86 (1033 on 15.0).

If you want to discuss my competition results rather than my commute history I can do that as well, but you asked specifically for "a whole tank".

Click to expand...

Lug_Nut, can you please share with me some driving tips, tuning modifications, etc.? I also use mostly high-blends of ASTM biodiesel and am lucky to get anywhere near 50 on a tank (probably 50% city vs. hwy, and LA is tough).

65mpg looks impressive....as long as that particular car meets one's needs. For commuting, perhaps good, although I doubt I could ever be comfortable driving something that small. Any utility? Forget about it. I'll take my Passat and the indicated mpg you see below (no hypermiling whatsoever, don't plan on any).

i dont think 69mpg is impressive at all....for the size/lack of power/lack of options/lack of winter driving ability/lack of storage/lack of passenger capability. To me if that car doesnt push 100 mpg what is the point?

I mean my jetta that is what 4 times the size...triple the weight...4 times the hp and i can actually fit stuff in it...tow if need be and its awesome in winter can push over 60 mpg....So yah not real impressive

I know its kind'a blasphemy here, but being that own both a Jetta TDI and a Smart CDI, I've got'ta say, the Smart is definitely more practical for me.

I don't need the space whenever I go back and forth from work. The back is more than enough for groceries. Its comfortable even in long trips. It actually has more power than I need with the remap. Why drive something 4 times the size unless you do have the need to carry stuff all time. Parking is amazing on the Smart. Drives like a go-kart!

However, it does lack a lot of nice things that are more or less standard nowadays. No cruise control (you can install one, but technically illegal), horrible traction control, lot of dealer service only items. Its below average at best in winter driving - why I ended up with a TDI, my winter beater.

stickman007 said:

I know its kind'a blasphemy here, but being that own both a Jetta TDI and a Smart CDI, I've got'ta say, the Smart is definitely more practical for me.

I don't need the space whenever I go back and forth from work. The back is more than enough for groceries. Its comfortable even in long trips. It actually has more power than I need with the remap. Why drive something 4 times the size unless you do have the need to carry stuff all time. Parking is amazing on the Smart. Drives like a go-kart!

However, it does lack a lot of nice things that are more or less standard nowadays. No cruise control (you can install one, but technically illegal), horrible traction control, lot of dealer service only items. Its below average at best in winter driving - why I ended up with a TDI, my winter beater.

Click to expand...

For maybe 9mpg...why drive a car that if you had to carry something you couldnt....Being a 1 car house a smart car wouldnt do half what i need and really for 9mpg its not even close to worth the swap.....I like the idea of a smart car but it should get way more then 9 mpg or less then a full size car 4 times bigger.

Savageman69 said:

I mean my jetta that is what 4 times the size...triple the weight...

Click to expand...

http://www.autoevolution.com/engine/smart-fortwo-2012-08-cdi-54-hp.html

So, your Jetta is over 20 feet tall and weighs over 5000 pounds? Kudos on still being able to get 60MPG. Impressive.

Savageman69 said:

i dont think 69mpg is impressive at all....for the size/lack of power/lack of options/lack of winter driving ability/lack of storage/lack of passenger capability. To me if that car doesnt push 100 mpg what is the point?

I mean my jetta that is what 4 times the size...triple the weight...4 times the hp and i can actually fit stuff in it...tow if need be and its awesome in winter can push over 60 mpg....So yah not real impressive

Click to expand...

The problem is that any time you sit two people upright in chairs side by side, you end up with a certain minimum frontal area that is not readily reducible, and the short length doesn't lend itself to having a spectacular drag coefficient, either. A smart punches pretty much a same-size hole through the air driving at 100 km/h as a regular compact sedan does. They do decently in city and lower-speed driving where the light weight is a benefit and the aerodynamics don't start hurting it too much.

Advantage: Parking and city maneuverability. That's what they were designed for.

One of our company vehicles is a smart (gas engine), I drive it a lot. For carting an engineer, a laptop, a hard hat, a set of work boots, and a set of plans between office and job site, it works great. Parking is pretty much never an issue. The one we have, has better wheels and tires and a Bilstein suspension kit on it. Handling is pretty much go-kart, which I consider to be a good thing, and it actually rides decently for what it is. One of the things the nay-sayers never mention is that these cars have quite good steering (not overassisted like most newer cars). In stock form it's masked by the skinny front wheels and horrible Continental ContiProContact hockey pucks that they claim are tires. On ours - that's fixed. It's actually a fun car to drive.

No, the fuel consumption isn't spectacular, but it's low enough to not break the bank. Works for me. The car is about the same weight and power as my 1978 Honda Civic was ... and both the performance envelope and the consumption are about the same, too.

71MPG average best tank so far while towing a trailer.

My most favorite car ever was a 1994 Geo Metro. At the time, I actually knew nothing about how driving technique affects MPG - so I drove like a bat out of hell. I still got 50 mpg.

The second best part of the Metro was the ability to grab parking spaces others were forced to pass up (a real benefit in congested Washington DC, where I was living at the time). The Smart would be even better in this regard.

That said, one does have to factor in the utility of a vehicle, not just MPG, when considering its efficiency.

I lived in Thailand, and drove a scooter that got 145 MPG (also without trying.....). However, is it fair to compare a scooter with a car?

Likewise, we wouldn't compare the fuel efficiency of a tractor-trailer (4-8 MPG) to that of a car, for what seam to be obvious reasons. In fact, tractor trailers, given their carrying capacity, are actually extremely efficient - probably more efficient than any passenger car, in terms of fuel consumed to carry a given weight over a given distance.

In the same way, its not really fair to compare a Smart to a VW - VW's can carry 4 to 5 people, a good bit of luggage, and still get 50+mpg.

This is also where the "Miles per Gallon" versus "Gallons per 100 miles" would be very instructive.

Don't have time to do the math - but you'd find the absolute fuel savings of a 65 MPG car over a 50 MPG car aren't really that much. Both sip fuel.

I looked at one of these when they first came here. It was like WT!, I have a Passat B4 that gets 20 mpgs better on average than they are claiming this thing will see. You could fit ~2 of these inside of my B4 Passat TDI.....

I have decades of real data showing most of time in my Passat mid to high 50s around town, with 4 tanks that I approached 65 mpgUS over this time.....

Then while investigating the bringing of this thing here for sale I found to my dismay, no diesel and no manual transmission, it was like what is the !!!! point of even offering this thing here!?!

You would be far better off with a cheaper cost manual trans corolla or civic, similar mpgs and a lot bigger more comfortable.......I have a corolla that easily hits mid 30s when effort is applied while driving real world speeds on a freeway caring 4 people and cargo....My Passat can do this while caring 5 people and cargo hit the 50 mpg mark!

Now you compare this thing to the current on sale now 2015 Passat TDI-CR 150Hp, a lot bigger than my B4 car that just got a new more powerful fuel sipping diesel engine. Couple that new design diesel engine with a manual transmission it should easily tank after tank hit or exceed the 50 mpgUS mark......OR the fact that very soon the Golf will be getting this same fuel sipping drive train so should be able to easily exceed the mid 50s mpgUS tank after tank.........

This thing struggles to handle two adults, forget driving this thing for any time at higher highway speeds! In Europe these things are banned from high speed freeways, for a reason.........In the light of this reality, This thing looks quite silly indeed!

I never did understand why the gas version of that car didn't get about 2x the mileage that it got.

I'm in no position to try to tell somebody what car would be better for them or more comfortable. That is always their choice to make. I have 2 kids and a wife, so my car has to handle 4 people. Other people might not have this requirement. I also don't have enough disposable income to have a family car and a commuter car, other people might have different experiences. I live in Metro Detroit where parking spaces are ample and driving is a breeze, other people might have significantly different experiences. I appreciate going 700-800 miles per tank of fuel, other people might commute far less distances, and don't have a compelling need to go 3-4 weeks between their fillups.

I'm happy for the guy who is happy getting 71MPG in this car.

I also never understood why the Smart gas version gets such relatively lousy MPG.

I suppose the answer is in the lousy aerodynamics - its small, but tall.

At the end of the day, the value in the Smart isn't so much in its fuel efficiency, but in its very compact size. You'd want it if you did a lot of driving (and parking...) in congested inner-cities. The above point is also valid - in few cases, due its passenger limitation, would it suffice for a single-car family.

I now live in Metro Phoenix area. Out here, I have never had to search for a parking space. Most driving is highway-esque, even when not on the highway.

Yet, I do see lots of Smart cars out here.

rotarykid said:

In Europe these things are banned from high speed freeways, for a reason.........In the light of this reality, This thing looks quite silly indeed!

Click to expand...

What "thing" are you discussing? Not a Smart Fortwo because they are NOT banned from high speed freeways in Europe.

Man, someone posts about being happy about their MPG.

Many are happy, post nice things.

But like 10% of you react by pissing in their cornflakes.

Are/were not the first ones of these things not part of the speed restricted micro car class across Europe? As a safety measure most of the smallest examples of this class were speed restricted and lane or highway restricted.