The Great Smart MPG Mystery

By Antony Ingram

Antony Ingram

LATEST ARTICLE
Can't Afford To Buy An EV? Rent a 2011 Nissan Leaf in January
As we speculated earlier this month, your first test drive in an electric vehicle might actually be... Read More

• N/ALEADERBOARD RANK
• 16ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED
• 180COMMENTS POSTED

2008 Smart Fortwo

Enlarge Photo

Since its official introduction into the U.S. in January 2008, the Smart ForTwo has come under near constant criticism for the poor economy figures it achieves despite being one of the smallest engined and lowest performing vehicles on the market.

The initial sales it enjoyed were no doubt influenced by the high cost of gas at the time, but the irony is that there are several more efficient vehicles available on the market today. The EPA figures of 33 mpg city and 41 mpg highway are certainly nothing to shout too loudly about from a two-seater car with very little performance, and owners are often struggling to hit even these figures.

The entire state of affairs is confusing, as theoretically the Smart should be a paragon of efficiency. Though not particularly aerodynamic, the car is one of the lightest on the market, and the engine is a very modern and efficient design, straight from the Mercedes-Benz drawing-board.

The problem isn't confined to the States either, with many owners in the UK struggling to beat 45 miles to the imperial gallon (37 mpg U.S.) in a mix of driving. However, the problem does appear to be unique to the gasoline-engined Smarts, as the ForTwo Cdi with its 800 cc, three-cylinder turbodiesel available in Europe seems to be more than capable of beating the claimed fuel economy of 69 mpg U.S.--some owners are even achieving as much as 83 mpg, which works out as the magical 100 mpg figure when converted to imperial gallons.

So why is the gasoline-powerd Smart ForTwo not living up to expectations? The poor aerodynamics might be partially to blame, and in a low powered car at highway speeds you need all the help you can get to minimise the thrashing needed to maintain momentum. The recalcitrant semi-automatic gearbox might also be partly at fault, as it can only offer frustrating pauses as a reward for changing gear, which is neither conducive to speedy nor efficient progress.

Unfortunately, Smart itself seems unable to offer any official statement on why the gasoline model struggles so glaringly to meet it's claimed figures regardless of how saintly the car is driven. In one thread on an official Smart forum in the UK, a representative seemed only able to hint that it was the owners' driving style at fault (and did so on more than one occasion), a response never likely to impress valueable customers.

There is little doubt that the ForTwo is curiously inefficient despite what appearances and marketing might suggest. Over in Europe, many owners are jumping ship to the diesel in the quest for greater mileage, but unfortunately American customers don't have that option.

What all Smart owners deserve is an official explanation as to why the published fuel economy figures seem so far out of reach. The customer may not always be right, but so many people can't be wrong...