Versa vs Smart

[msb0b]

We have to keep in mind that Smart is engineered to solve the urban parking problem, not the fuel economy problem. You can park two smart cars in a parking space for a normal car. Fuel economy is a secondary benefit that comes with the small size and low weight.

Despite its small size, Smart has a very rigid frame. It is as strong as a roll cage. Most junkyard crushers have problem dealing with Smart. Instead they have to be cut with a torch.

I saw these pics of a hardbody t-boned Smart on another forum. Take a look for yourself.

[MinisterofDOOM]

We have to keep in mind that Smart is engineered to solve the urban parking problem, not the fuel economy problem. You can park two smart cars in a parking space for a normal car.

Yet another case of "doesn't fit North American purposes."

In Europe, "compact" parking spots are common.In the US, they're all but nonexistent. Being able to park two Smarts in one spot isn't beneficial when there's not going to be another Smart to fill the other half. Now you're just using a whole spot for a tiny car. No benefit there.

[marleyfan]

One smart plus 2 motorcycles equals one parking space

[msb0b]

Yet another case of "doesn't fit North American purposes."

In Europe, "compact" parking spots are common.In the US, they're all but nonexistent. Being able to park two Smarts in one spot isn't beneficial when there's not going to be another Smart to fill the other half. Now you're just using a whole spot for a tiny car. No benefit there.

I disagree on Smart "doesn't fit North American purposes." My take on the situation is that the North American infrastructure was not designed to accommodate Smart.

Parking space for micro cars is a chicken and egg problem. Without Smarts on the road, there would be no demand for for the half sized parking spaces. If there is enough take up on Smart, parking operators will reconfigure their garages as long as it makes economic sense. In countries where motorcycle and scooters are more common, they can also reconfigure those parking spaces for micro cars.

If economic forces are driving the changes, it is not going to happen over night. Europe has a 10 year head start, and I think they are faring pretty well.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »A quick search of various UK car sites found these:

Merceds C-Class (not 70s, but significantly higher than the same engine here) select the C230

us - http://www.carsdirect.com/2007/mercedesbenz/c230

uk - http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.u....html

Peugeot

206 - http://ww3.peugeot.co.uk/ppp/P...b.pdf (73)107 - http://ww3.peugeot.co.uk/ppp/P...t.pdf (68)

Fiat 500 http://www.fiat.co.uk/WorkArea...10689

Ford - yeah, they can actually make a decent car, just not here:

http://www.ford.co.uk/safari/a...iesel/ ... el/-/-/-/-

[/quote]None of those cars get even close to 80 mpg.

Some are listed as miles per litre, not miles per gallon.

I'm sure some European diesels get mileage into the 40-50 range (Ford Mondeo listed, 53 mpg) but there's no mass produced car that I know of getting 70-80 MILE PER GALLON.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »There are cars across the pond that get 50-80 mpg on diesel but they are not allowed in the US. [/quote]50, yes. But what car gets 80 mpg on diesel?

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »We have to keep in mind that Smart is engineered to solve the urban parking problem, not the fuel economy problem. You can park two smart cars in a parking space for a normal car. Fuel economy is a secondary benefit that comes with the small size and low weight.Despite its small size, Smart has a very rigid frame. It is as strong as a roll cage. Most junkyard crushers have problem dealing with Smart. Instead they have to be cut with a torch.

I saw these pics of a hardbody t-boned Smart on another forum. Take a look for yourself.[/quote]T-boned? At what speed? 20 mph?

I'd take my chances in a body on frame SUV or 1/2 ton pickup any day over being hit while in a Smart.

And what source do you have that indicate junkyards have to cut Smarts with torches instead or crushing it? You're telling me junkyards across the country can crush most automobiles and trucks but a Smart has to be torch cut?
Modified by Bubs daddy at 3:32 AM 5/11/2008

[Great White Versa]

None of those cars get even close to 80 mpg.

Some are listed as miles per litre, not miles per gallon.

I'm sure some European diesels get mileage into the 40-50 range (Ford Mondeo listed, 53 mpg) but there's no mass produced car that I know of getting 70-80 MILE PER GALLON.

If you look more closely, the Peugeot 206 gets 76.3 mpg highway. Here is the line where it says that: Extra urban drive cycle mpg (litres/100km) 76.3 (3.7) It shows both the mpg and the litres/100km, as do most European spec sheets.

The Ford pages show only the "combined cycle" stats. This reviewer here states that he consistently got better than 70mpg on the highway.

So, you are (partially) correct. Ford's website claims only 65.6 mpg on its website, though, that is a calculated average, with the highway mileage being somewhere between 70 and 75. Which, IS above 70. Also, the Peugeot 206's 76.3 mpg highway is conspicuously close to 80.

In addition to those previously mentioned, I found a few more for your viewing pleasure.

Citroën C1 - - 83.1 mpg

(Chevy/Opel)/Vauxhall Corsa - 64 mpg One owner review that I read claimed he could get nearly 100 mpg cruising at 55 mph with no A/C.

There, now there are several mass produced vehicles that you know of that get in the 70-80 mpg (highway) range.

<Edit> It appears that the numbers they use for fuel economy are based on the Imperial gallon. So, the Citroën C1 would have a US Gallon mpg of 'just' 69 mpg. </Edit>
Modified by Great White Versa at 5:11 AM 5/11/2008

[Rockhound]

We have to keep in mind that Smart is engineered to solve the urban parking problem, not the fuel economy problem. You can park two smart cars in a parking space for a normal car.

Fuel economy is a secondary benefit that comes with the small size and low weight.

Aha, but therein lies the rub. With it's small size and low weight, an EPA rating of 33 city/41 hwy is atrocious.

A Yaris hatch, for example, has a 97" wheelbase, a quite usable back seat, and scoots to 60 MPH in 9.3 seconds. It's positively large next to the 73.5" wheelbase ForTwo, which only seats two and takes a onramp-scary 14 seconds to get to 60 MPH. Oh yeah, and a Yaris hatch, with 106 HP (36 more than the ForTwo) is rated at 34/39 MPG.

The Yaris has a power to weight ratio of 0.046 hp/lb. The ForTwo: 0.042 hp/lb. For kicks, Versa hatch: 0.045 lb/hp. Smart managed to make a car that weighs 640 lbs less than a Yaris hatch burn more fuel. Good for them.

Heck, my wife's been easily getting 30 MPG on the last few tanks in the Versa, and it's a veritable limousine next to a ForTwo. Not to mention a porker on the scale at over 2700 lbs.

At first glance, you'd think they sacrificed fuel efficiency for zippy performance, I mean, it's a 1600 lb car, right? But when you find out that it's both inefficient (for it's size/weight) AND slow, then what's the point? The ONLY benefit of this car is parking, and that's just not worth it. Had they gone with something other than this Mitsubishi engine, it'd probably be much more efficient.

[Bubs daddy]

I went to numerous sites and the best mileage I could find for the Peugeot 206 was 64.2 mpg, very respectable. I could not find any that would indicate mileage in the 70's. I could not find it at Peugeot's site.

Checked out the Citroen's as well. Indeed, impressive mileage, I guess extra urban is highway mpg. Not sure I'd want a 55 hp car, though.

If any of these vehicles are imported, they would have to meet US crash standards which always adds weight to the car.

Thanks for the information.

[Bubs daddy]

Back to the Smart. I would echo Rockhound's comments. I would also add that two seats with little storage just doesn't cut it. I'd get claustrophobic in the thing. What seems to be its only forte, parking, is not an issue for me. Plenty of parking where I live.

If someone came out with a glass bubble on four wheels that gets 100 mpg, it may be interesting but I wouldn't buy it. I need room for passengers, I need room for stuff. I need room to breathe and not feel like I'm being smothered.

In my opinion, the Versa provides the best combination of power, fuel economy, room, utility, comfort, quality and features.

[motoguy128]

On my last trip to France, I rented a Citroen C2 and Peugot 206 before that. There also is a Peugot 106. The Versa is the same size I believe as the Peugot 206, Citroen C3, and it's sister, the Renault Clio. The solution to fuel economy is a smaller gas engine (1.5 or 1.6L) or a turbo diesel (typically around 2.0L).

So if gas gets even more expensive, you could see Nissan offer a 1.5L or 1.6L for the Versa.... and possibly the 1.8L in the Sentra and 2.0L for the Rogue. Performance would suffer, highway economy would be relatively unchanged, but city economy would improve.

I know I'd like to see the 2.5L offered in the Murano.

I think Nissan is well situated with cars that aren't oversized and overweight, I-4's that offer good bottom end and midrange performance, and therefore allow a larger car to still perform reasonably with the next size smaller motor. Toyota and Honda don't offer a 2.0L, and their 2.4L motors can't quite bridge the gap in vehicles. Although Toyota is bringing out a 2.7L for the Venza. It wouldn't take much to bore out Hondas 2.4L to 2.7L for use in the Pilot or even the Odyssey.

[Urq]

A good friend of mine let me drive her new smart and I was quite surprised at how well it drove.The one she got was fully equipped at a cost in the mid 18k range.I think that is too much $$$ for a car that size!She got the Auto with paddle shifters but I did not like the way it shifted it had a large lunge in between shifts that does not feel good but the car has remarkable acceleration for its size and does 70 no problem on the freeway.The hard part for me to get over is when you sit in the car the front of the car is about 1 foot in front of your legs and the furthest part of the car in the rear is about 1 foot behind you.

Also she had the car on order for about a year and was one of the first people to take delivery in San Diego.She told me that all the Smarts that people change there minds on buying are called Orphans and the dealership is taking possession of them and modding them up with stuff like rims,tinted windows,GPS and stereo systems and marking them up even more.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I know I'd like to see the 2.5L offered in the Murano.

I don't really think anything good would come of that. The QR is no more fuel efficient than the VQ, but the VQ makes more power which means it will be more efficient moving the Murano. Less power for no better mpg is a bad trade. You'll loose acceleration power, freeway cruising power, and spend a lot more time in the fuel-inefficient high end of the tachometer. There's a reason you never see 4 cylinder engines in big cars: it's not efficient. 4 cyls only work in small cars.The Murano weighs 3900 lb. The QR couldn't possible cope with that.

Honda made this mistake with the latest Accord. The Accord has gotten big and heavy (at least compared to it's predecessors) but Honda hasn't upgraded the powerplants. It still has the same anemic K24 in base models, and it shows in the EPA estimates (22/31). 22 in town is horrible for a front drive 4 cylinder sedan. If you're not getting exceptional commuter milage, what's the point of even buying an Accord?

[Ever Victorious]

If you're not getting exceptional commuter milage, what's the point of even buying an Accord?

To see how well marketing brainwashes you.

They also made the mistake with their Accord Hybrid of making it a hybrid 6 cylinder. It got the same fuel economy as their base 4, but were almost $10k more expensive.

But your point again goes back to balance of power. A bigger, heavier vehicle is no more efficient with a small engine than a large engine, so it makes more sense to have the larger one in there.

The Murano, IMHO, is just a beast anyway. Too big, too inefficient. But I'm not in the market for any vehicle of its size class, so if I ever needed one it would be for a very short period of time. For me, it makes MUCH more sense just to rent a truck or van for the day than to buy a bigger SUV that sucks gas.

We do still own a small SUV that gets OK mileage because we do, on a regular basis, carry stuff appropriate to its size (Ikea runs, dump runs, dogs + baby, etc.) so it's not a waste for us to have that. It sits most of the time, only gets driven on the weekends or when my wife and I both need to use cars at the same time. The Versa is the one that gets used for commute and my work, and the added advantage of carpooling makes Seattle traffic ALMOST tolerable.

There's nothing wrong with a small, basic transport/commuter car, though I think the current incarnation of the Smart misses both in price and economy. There's plenty of used Mini Coopers around here for about that price, that would get the same mileage, and probably still be cheaper to maintain since it's not a Mercedes product.

[keanucosmo]

All I'm saying, though, is that acting as if a 300+hp V6 will get the same gas mileage as a 4-cylinder on the highway is preposterous. It kind of reminds me of one of my coworkers that is apparently stuck in 1975. He's afraid of getting his wife a 4-cyl powered car, because he wasn't sure how good they'd be for long trips (?)

I can't speak about 6 cyl, but my 350 hp 98 Vette got 30+ mpg cruising @ 80 mph before I changed from a 3.42 gear to a 4.10. Now it's down to 27mpg. Cruising @80 in a 6mt Versa probably would be 32 mpg max because it is geared so low. I can see 32-34 mpg from a properly tuned & geared 300 hp V6.

[srellim234]

EV- What tricks are they doing in your area of the country to get that kind of mileage out of a Mini? I haven't seen anything that indicates the Mini is anywhere near the smart in gas mileage. The Mini also calls for 91 octane fuel, so there's no saving per gallon at the pump over the Smart. I think a more economical choice over the Smart would be something like a Civic.

We bought the Versa for almost the exact same reasons (to park the 7-seater Rendezvous most of the time and have a daily runaround/commuter). That's why we have not been satisfied with the Versa. Much worse gas mileage than our previous "daily cars", a Civic and a Metro. Compared to newer cars, the Versa is delivering worse than sticker gas mileage while the Civic, Corolla, Matrix and Vibe are all delivering above sticker. Yes, the Versa has the creature comforts, but the consumer should be able to expect his/her gas mileage to be about the same proportionately to the sticker as other cars. In that respect Nissan does not deliver as well as other competing car companies.

Before people jump all over this, I'm referring to the 2007 Versa with CVT, which was rated 30/36. The EPA revised it down to "28 combined" later.

[Bubs daddy]

I have the the 2007 with CVT and I get 32 mpg combined consistently.
Modified by Bubs daddy at 5:34 PM 5/12/2008

[bikeman]

I have the the 2007 with CVT and I get 32 mpg combined consistently.

Ditto. The Versa ain't no Metro and my neighbor's new Civic is getting 33 mpg combined. He's borrowed my Versa twice to move things. I've never had the need of his Civic. The Versa is also more comfortable for my wife and I than the Civic and it costs less. Every vehicle has it's strengths and weaknesses. Doing our homework before buying will usually get us in the right vehicle. Relying on a window sticker mpg rating isn't doing our homework IMHO. YMMV.This Forum was a great start to an education on the Versa.

David

[Ever Victorious]

EV- What tricks are they doing in your area of the country to get that kind of mileage out of a Mini? I haven't seen anything that indicates the Mini is anywhere near the smart in gas mileage. The Mini also calls for 91 octane fuel, so there's no saving per gallon at the pump over the Smart. I think a more economical choice over the Smart would be something like a Civic.

No tricks. A couple people I used to autocross with had Minis, and they said they got 32-33 MPG combined. Not far off from the new US-Spec Smart's estimated 36 combined. Mind you, these are base models, not the S model. And you can at least carry something larger than your lunchbox in it.

Quote »Compared to newer cars, the Versa is delivering worse than sticker gas mileage while the Civic, Corolla, Matrix and Vibe are all delivering above sticker. [/quote]Funny to me personally that you mention the Civic and the Vibe.

My MIL's Civic HYBRID manages only 36 MPG in combined driving. The HonDuh dealership managed to find and fix the cause of the problem, and it went back up into the 40's... for a whopping one tank, then it broke again and is returning 36-ish again. I'm sure my MIL is oh so pleased to pay the premium for the Hybrid to get non-Hybrid like fuel economy. Way to go HonDuh, that just proves your reliability even more. (Like my BIL's HonDuh which, after a complete engine and transmission rebuild, STILL won't run right)

And my co-worker, who owns a Vibe, had two words to say about its fuel economy: "Not good.". She couldn't give me a numeric value, but if the figures from my rental Vibe are similar, that numeric value would be 19 MPG combined.

I don't know a single person that owns a Corolla, so I couldn't possibly ask about that one. And I don't WANT to ask my friend with the Matrix about theirs, because he's displeased with basically every aspect of the car. Including reliability.

[srellim234]

Anectodal evidence on an individual car can be pulled to prove or disprove any point. The Civics I've been around were all regular gas versions and averaged over 35 mpg combined driving. I don't personally know anyone who's owned a hybrid version. The two Vibe owners I know are getting 29 and 30, respectively, and are quite pleased with their cars. Mileage at fueleconomy.gov is better on all of those vehicles than the Versa since it was revised downward.

The Versa is a good car; it just doesn't quite fulfill the niche that we bought it for in the way we hoped it would. Every day we're dealing primarily with a lot of stop signs and traffic lights and the mileage isn't there. It's ok on the freeway and sustained driving, but not that great where we wind up driving in downtown Upland every day. Most days the car never sees a freeway or more than 1/4 mile without a light or stop sign.

Interesting that you should mention a hybrid. I was shaking my head the other day. Some lady in a Prius was hammering off the stop signs, weaving in and out and otherwise being ridiculously aggressive while driving one. I happened to catch up to her in the Target parking lot and overheard someone ask her how she liked the car. She said she hated it, remarking, "Don't waste your money on it. I'm not even getting 40 mpg out of it. They lie like crazy about the gas mileage to sell those things." She was clueless about how those cars must be driven to be efficient.

[Knightro2]

Just saw this on CNNMoney. The Smartcar gets good crash test ratings.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/1...n=yes

[jmaclean]

I own a '77 B210 HB. It sat in my dads garage for about 15 years so it's not roadworthy yet but it should be by the end of the year.

Hey guy, how about a picture now and a pic later when it's "on the road"?What color is it and what work does it need? My B210 was brown with light tan interior. Ahhhh, memories!!!

[Rockhound]

...and it shows in the EPA estimates (22/31). 22 in town is horrible for a front drive 4 cylinder sedan. If you're not getting exceptional commuter milage, what's the point of even buying an Accord?

I agree, 22 in town for a FF I4 sedan is paltry mileage. But it is rated for 31 on the highway, which is, as I understand it, a way that many folks tend to commute. 31 MPG is quite a feat considering its girth (from 3300 to 3600 lbs for the I4-equipped trims).

I can't speak about 6 cyl, but my 350 hp 98 Vette got 30+ mpg cruising @ 80 mph before I changed from a 3.42 gear to a 4.10. Now it's down to 27mpg. Cruising @80 in a 6mt Versa probably would be 32 mpg max because it is geared so low. I can see 32-34 mpg from a properly tuned & geared 300 hp V6.

The Corvette is somewhat of an anomaly in that respect. Two (of many) reasons why it achieves such spectacular (highway) mileage are its relatively low weight (around 3200 lbs - good power to weight ratio) and its low drag coefficient.

The aforementioned 300+hp V6 sedans, on the other hand, weigh in at 300-500 lbs more than the C5 'Vette, and tend to feature slightly more dragalicious designs, thus reducing mileage substantially.

I'm not arguing that someone couldn't tune and tweak a powerful engine into an efficient engine as well (Corvette engineers have shown us how it's done) but as far as non-two-seater sports cars go, extra-powerful sedans tend to be porkers on the scale, thus giving up potential gas mileage.

Anectodal evidence on an individual car can be pulled to prove or disprove any point.

Exactly. He's pretty good at tuning out such stories on the brands he loves, however.

[Ever Victorious]

Exactly. He's pretty good at tuning out such stories on the brands he loves, however.

If you'd like to settle whatever beef you have developed with me off-board, please, by all means email me. If not, could we please just go back to ignoring each other and leaving each other alone?

[srellim234]

Anectdotal evidence provides a valuable service when it comes to specific tips. Without it, we wouldn't be getting good tips from fellow Versa drivers on how to improve our vehicles. It provides warnings to look out for when looking at other cars. It is too individually specific to make a judgement about an entire model run of a car, though.

I tend to judge brands on overall reporting. That's why I use sites like fueleconomy.gov to check fuel mileage for a model. We have a few reports of great gas mileage in particular cars, but they are not being reported to an impartial site for verification. I suspect (and yes, I acknowledge that I can't prove it), that over time there are a lot of "one tank wonders" who find their mileage slipping and quit reporting it. I would think that the better it got the more eager you would be to share your results with the world.

The 2007 Versa with CVT:32 cars reportedOverall average 28.3 mpgSeven reported at 31.0 mpg or better; six of the seven haven't submitted a tankful in over a year. Two of those 7 haven't reported since 2006.

So, why aren't the 2007 Versa with CVT owners who post here claiming great gas mileage not sharing this info with the rest of the world?

Anectodally, every car make has lemons and all-stars. When you put them all together, that's when you get a more realistic picture of the vehicle.

[kc5f]

So, why aren't the 2007 Versa with CVT owners who post here claiming great gas mileage not sharing this info with the rest of the world?

For me, it's the same reason I don't keep my mileage results up on Michael Karesh's website (although I am part of his reliability survey). I have filled my Versa's tank 170 times so far, and although I keep my own detailed spreadsheet, it takes too long to update all of that information to one or more websites...

[srellim234]

I can respect that.

I agree that Michael Karesh's fuel economy survey is not particularly useful. It is not very user friendly and results aren't presented in a very useable manner to his contributors. I, too, take place in his reliability survey but have quit entering fuel purchases there.

The fueleconomy.gov site provides a download button for downloading results directly to your spreadsheet. I enter my gas purchases there first. A click on the download button imports it to my spreadsheet instead of loading on my spreadsheet first and then re-entering all the data at the website.