Life with Smart...3 months, 12000 miles later

Sorry, been a bit remiss in my little "Life with Smart" updates. So its been about 3 and a half months and a little over 12,000 miles now (yeah I drive ALOT)

So lets hit the obvious question first.
Gas milage, until recently I was still averaging 43-45 mpg. I say until recently because I had a co-worker who has been doing the same 140 mile a day commute in a Silverado finally talk me into commuting together. So with the weight of an extra adult in the car my average has dropped to 41, still not too shabby but it does show how weight, especially in a small car, plays a big factor in mpg. I think if I ever go back to solo driving I may have to try stripping it down a bit to see what she can do.

Maintenance and Reliability had to go for the first oil change at 10k. Since the warranty is a pathetic 20k miles and the oil changes and service interval is at 10k I decided to splurge and let the dealer handle it. Overall not too bad, right around 100 bux for the full 10k service and check up and they even washed her. No other issues to report.

Day to day life has been good. Ive become kind of oblivious to the stares and looks. Having a passenger now has shed new light as he notices all the people staring at the car. But honestly when you are in the car and driving its just so easy to forget you are in a tiny speck of a car. Its roomy, comfortable and honestly probably the best commuter car I've ever owned. Its just easy to drive and easy to live with. Even my new passenger, who resisted the carpooling idea because he didn't like the idea of riding in the little beast has become quite enamored of the space and comfort.

I still get a smile when I look at it but even more I'm struck that now that the novelty has worn off its still just a good car. It feels solid, its nice to drive, its comfortable and it doesn't feel like an econobox.

It's certainly not everything and not for everyone. I recently added an F350 to the stable to pick up the slack but I really only need that once in a blue moon to tow things or haul junk to the dump. Its a fabulous commuter appliance that is a bit nicer than an appliance. Since the start of our relationship the wife has always had the "going out" car. Currently that is an 05 Mustang convertible. Its a lovely car but most times we jump in the Smart now when we go out. Its just as comfortable, just as fun and it costs less to operate.

So sorry for sounding like a fanboi once again, but I'm still enjoying it, I'm not holding back in my opinion and I'm happy to point out the faults as I find them, but really, its a nice car...try it, you'll like it ;)

oil at 10K? Synthetic?

edit hey, if your happy with it, more power to you

neon4891 wrote: oil at 10K? Synthetic? *edit* hey, if your happy with it, more power to you

Yep, Mobil 1 from the factory and at service.

I am happy with it, and I'm not trying to convince folks its what everyone should drive but I am actually quite amazed with it. I'll admit I bought it as a novelty and figured with its popularity I could get my money back if needed, but its really a nice car. It's only compromise is space which really isnt much of a compromise. I have yet to have a need to haul something that I needed more space for (including a 42 inch LCD TV)

Its much better than I expected.

Interesting. I don't know much about Smarts. Glad you like it, but honestly, I'm surprised it only gets 43 mpg. Is that a lot of "traffic jam" commuting or something?

slowe30 wrote: Interesting. I don't know much about Smarts. Glad you like it, but honestly, I'm surprised it only gets 43 mpg. Is that a lot of "traffic jam" commuting or something?

Considering it's EPA rated at 41 highway the 43-45 is a bonus. I know, everyone expects this car to get 60mpg or something but the sad truth is a combination of modern safety BS, emissions BS, etc means cars just aren't getting the milage they should sadly. My purchase decision was simple...I looked at what had the highest MPG rating of any gas (non hybrid) car and right now the smart is it.

It is hampered mostly by its aerodynamics which really aren't optimal for highway commuting. At lower speeds (50mph) I get readings in the high 50s low 60s on the scanguage. But its not very aerodynamic, that is the trade off to making a small car a safe car, its shape, for safety reasons, is not very aerodynamic.

I think in the next year or two we will see similar cars that are designed more around fuel economy/aerodynamics (smart was designed more around safety) that will get better mileage. When that happens, and depending on the crash test results, I may move on to the next wave of small car.

Oh and I should mention that when I first got it I went easy on her and commuted at 65ish mph and was seeing close to 50mpg....but now Im in my normal routine and Im rollin at 75-80 so that definitely is killing my economy.

if only they would bring back the smart roadster and import that. I bet it might sell just as well here in the states as the "For2"

I did One Lap Of America in a Smart. In the September Car and Driver is suppose to have a side bar story on us. 4000 miles in a week in a Smart. And yes it will run 90 miles an hour!!

bigwrench wrote: I did One Lap Of America in a Smart. In the September Car and Driver is suppose to have a side bar story on us. 4000 miles in a week in a Smart. And yes it will run 90 miles an hour!!

Sweet! I'll keep an eye out for that story, I'd love to hear more about that adventure :)

mad_machine wrote: if only they would bring back the smart roadster and import that. I bet it might sell just as well here in the states as the "For2"

+1 Yeah, that seemed like a sweet little car and I think they made a mistake by not sending it here. I'd be tempted to put a deposit on one right now if they had imported it.

Why does the CRX get similar mileage as the Smart?

Picture of the Smart in profile:

Picture of the CRX in profile:

Datsun1500 wrote: The 1989 CRX HF is a 2 seater, rated at 41 City, 50 Highway. That was 20 years ago, why is the smart being rated at 41 highway such a big deal 20 years later? The CRX is also about 300 pounds heaver. I don't get it

I got told to quit being a hater when I pointed this out last time. The Smarts 32 mpg city was vot very good either. Just think of it as a Prius, missing the battery, sold at the Mercedes dealer .

Datsun1500 wrote:

JThw8 wrote: Considering it's EPA rated at 41 highway the 43-45 is a bonus. I know, everyone expects this car to get 60mpg or something but the sad truth is a combination of modern safety BS, emissions BS, etc means cars just aren't getting the milage they should sadly

The 1989 CRX HF is a 2 seater, rated at 41 City, 50 Highway. That was 20 years ago, why is the smart being rated at 41 highway such a big deal 20 years later? The CRX is also about 300 pounds heaver. I don't get it

The FMVSS requirements 20 years ago may not be anywhere near what they are today.

For its size, the Smart is a very crashworthy vehicle.

Somewhere on youtube is a crash test of the Smart vs. an S-Class. The crash looks violent, but from what we were told in an Occupant Protection course at school, (500 level college course), the occupants should have had no problem surviving the crash. The video itself doesn't give you the results of the ATD sensors, but I had to take the word of my professor.

Modern safety equipment has probably added more weight to todays cars than any other addition in the last 20 years.

Let me state, first, that I love the Smart.

Had one on order when they came out. I gave it up though when my son starting karting. I need something to tow karts and tools around, and the Smart just didn't fit the bill...

Now, having said that, I think the Smart gets worse gas mileage than a CRX HF for a couple of reasons:

1) As John pointed out, aerodynamics has something to do with it

2) So does engine output. The HF has 90 pounds of torque v. the Smart's 68

3) They're very close in weight, CRX - 1967 v. Smart - 1808, so that's not a factor

However, in a collision, I'd much rather be in a Smart. Not that the CRX isn't safe (or that I'm some safe conscience nut), just that modern technology has made safer cars. It just shows that the focus has been over safety instead of economy for a long time.

Congrats on the Smart!! I wish I could get one.

-Rob

The weight you posted for the CRX I believe is the Si not the HX. But it's been awhile since I looked at the weights of the CRX.

I pulled it from CarPoint.com and it shows the Si at 2174. Don't know how accurate the site is, but it's probably close. (Besides, just trying to show the comparison).

-Rob

That comparison shows the CRX weighs nearly 10% more than the Smart- I'd consider it a factor. Shows in the OP's mentioning that mileage went down once he started allowing a friend to commute with him as well.

Only a 20k warranty? What's up with that? These days, even the old standard 3/36 is pretty weak.

Diesel Golfs FOR THE WIN!!!

I avg 48-50 no issues..... 2800Lbs car. With big heavy Audi TT wheels

Still a very neat car

Thanks for the report. If I didn't already have five running cars to choose from (including two MGs and a Miata), I would consider the Smart. Like many have stated, I wish the Smart Roadster was available.

As for fuel mileage for Smart vs. CRX, keep in mind that the CRX in manual trans. The Smart is an automatic (yes, I know it's the "Softip" and not a "normal" automatic, but still.....).

The CRX vs. Smart thing has been beaten to death. I know. I helped. I'm glad you're happy with the car, man.

Actually the smart is a manual. Its fully automated but it is a real manual trans with a clutch. Just the computer operates the clutch.

I think everyone who said aerodynamics definitely hit it on the head. The smart is not aerodynamic at all, a concession toward the safety design I suppose.

I'd certainly like to have the option to buy a car with higher MPG ratings but ummm....there isn't one(hybrids aside). Im sure that will all be changing in the next year or two, at least I hope it will.

The CRX was an amazing car too, unfortunately I cant buy a new one ;)

This could have, should have, been the answer!

clownkiller wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: The 1989 CRX HF is a 2 seater, rated at 41 City, 50 Highway. That was 20 years ago, why is the smart being rated at 41 highway such a big deal 20 years later? The CRX is also about 300 pounds heaver. I don't get it

I got told to quit being a hater when I pointed this out last time. The Smarts 32 mpg city was vot very good either. Just think of it as a Prius, missing the battery, sold at the Mercedes dealer .

The 1980 Honda Civic 1300 got something like 48-50 mpg highway. Modern cars have not come a long way at all in terms of fuel economy. Actually, in many cases they're regressed. Can a Honda Fit get 50 mpg? I guess a lot of it is attributable to extra safety weight and nobody really caring about mpg until recently.

All this said, I am interested in these long-term reviews of the Smart. (And I want to know more about the One-lap Smart -- and its performance.)

JThw8 wrote: My purchase decision was simple...I looked at what had the highest MPG rating of any gas (non hybrid) car and right now the smart is it.

I'm interested in this statement. Why did you specifically rule out hybrids, diesels, and other fuels? Just interested in your take on the matter.

I would have to guess that a diesel would get about equal miles per dollar, and you pay a pretty hefty premium for a diesel vehicle in terms of initial purchase cost. Not to mention I just looked through VW's lineup, and didn't see any diesels.

Hybrids are still a relative unknown. It's fine if you're a short-term buyer, but a bit dangerous in the long-term.