smart Road Trip: LA to Detroit at 60 MPG in the Diesel fortwo cdi
20 January 2008
As a lead-in to the Detroit auto show, Mercedes-Benz staged a long-distance drive from Los Angeles via Chicago to Detroit with three smart models—one fortwo mhd (micro hybrid drive), two fortwo cdis—and the Mercedes-Benz E 320 BLUETEC (US version).
 |
| A fortwo and the E320 in the snow on the way to Detroit. |
On the 4,400 kilometer route the smart fortwo fortwo cdis delivered 3.9 liters/100km (60.3 mpg US); the fortwo mhd recorded an average consumption of 4.8 litres per hundred kilometers (49 mpg US); and the larger E 320 consumed an average of 5.8 l/100 km (40.6 mpg US).
The journey from smarthouse in Venice, California to Detroit took seven days. For a large part of the time the route led the test convoy along the old Route 66. Media representatives from Germany, Italy and the USA took turns at the wheel.
The new smart fortwo cdi features an enhanced 799cc engine that develops 33 kW (45 bhp) of power with torque of 110 Nm (81 lb ft). That represents a decrease in fuel consumption from the prior model of around 13% with an increase in both power and torque of 10%. (Earlier post.)
The 52 kW (70 hp) smart fortwo micro-hybrid drive (mhd) uses a belt-driven starter generator from Valeo (StARS 137) to provide stop-start functionality. To ensure a low-slip and durable connection of the crank assembly and the starter generator, both components have been given wider belt pulleys, as was the water pump. A six-rib poly-V-belt from Gates Corporation transmits the power. (Earlier post.)
The E 320 BLUETEC features a 165 kW (224 bhp) 3.0-liter V-6 with the BLUETEC modular emission control system. (Earlier post.)
More than 30,000 Americans have placed a $99 deposit on the smart fortwo gasoline model. Dealers will begin to fill orders this month.
Interesting promotion. Obviously one would choose the E320 for such a trip if given the choice and pay a little extra for fuel. The fourtwo makes more sense in the congested city. Also, I'm guessing the micro hybrid would compare better in city traffic instead of the open road.
Posted by: Nick | 20 January 2008 at 05:24 PM
How does a 800cc motor only get 60mpg, when the 6cyl 3200cc? gets 40mpg?
Posted by: fred | 20 January 2008 at 07:40 PM
A review I read on the fortwo was not very inspiring. One thing is the short wheelbase makes for a bumpy ride.
I would like a motor expert (like Lad) to look at this web sight. They have a very interesting video of an engine running on 60% gas & 40% water. They also claim to have several conversion kits that can increase car milage by 50% to 300%. I know this sounds wild but the video is pretty interesting.
http://www.preignitioncc.com/nw/index.htm
Posted by: Ron | 20 January 2008 at 07:51 PM
Ron
I gave a look at this websit, these guys can't be serious claiming 300% gain in MPG, braking gazoline molecule with Magnet (sounds like the Pantone Engine.... You know it remember the 70s after the first oil shock, there were people claiming the same things (water mixed with ethanol, etc...), addition of H2 in the mixture can helps combustion but more serious people report 15% mileage improvement. Believe me if there were a silver bullet like they claim, companies like Ford and GM would jump on it to keep selling their big truck with much more margin profit than small fuel efficient car.
Posted by: Treehugger | 20 January 2008 at 08:12 PM
just to show how much of a brick the smart car is, the merc has way more grunt and comfort and it doesn't lag that far behind in consumption. The only difference is in the purchase price of the vehicles...
Posted by: philmcneal | 20 January 2008 at 09:22 PM
philmcneal: If you live in San Francisco, the Smart fourtwo is not a brick. It'll save you 20 minutes looking for parking every time you take it out. I can't tell you how many parking spots I pass up that are just a foot too short, and I drive a Golf...
Besides, last time I was in Paris I saw nothing but Smarts in the streets, mostly driven by beautiful women. So okay, it's a niche, but an awfully nice one :-)
Posted by: Jeff R | 20 January 2008 at 11:31 PM
@fred
One would think that an engine with three times the displacement (the e320) would get significantly worse fuel economy. There are a few things to note here, however:
-the reduced cylinder bore increases its aspect ratio leading to increased thermal losses
-the smart has to run at a higher rpm to achieve the same load level partially mitigating gains in the frictional loss department.
-the smart is, aerodynamically, a brick
Posted by: GreenPlease | 21 January 2008 at 05:13 AM
this is interesting. however, there's a key component missing: what sort of driving regime were they using? if they took route 66, they certainly weren't going much faster than 45-50 mph. these consumption figures are pretty useless without any knowledge of their speeds and roads that they took.
Posted by: lensovet | 21 January 2008 at 08:10 AM
Treehugger and all,
About the www.preignitioncc.com web site. I would normally agree that this is to good to be true. However, they are claiming to break water into the H2 and O components, which we know will burn. There is another company doing the same thing but claiming a 24% fuel improvement. They also use this method to make hot water heaters with about 5X lower energy costs. Web site: http://www.worldenergysolutionsinc.com/products/electrolysis
HHO Water (US Patent Application #20070089997)
and patent application # 11254593
Now if preignitioncc can use CC waste heat and a catalyst to break up water and then burn the H2 & O components, it would boost milage. Their normal claim is 50% to over 100% increase. I would normally agree about car companies but there is always a huge "not invented here" wall that keeps them from even looking most of the time. I'm not leaning one way or the other on the first company but I believe WEGY is real. I just thought some of you might be interested in seeing this and I'm interested in your opinions.
I personally am using a fuel additive called CA 40 which does boost my MPG by 14% HWY (75mph) and 23% city. This is using my averaging fuel computer on my Chrysler 300M.
Thanks
Posted by: Ron | 21 January 2008 at 09:52 AM
I would be interesting to see their trip logs of speeds over the Sierras and Rocky Mountains. Even the GM people are reviewing the performance of the Volt going over long mountain passes. I can remember a 2000 pound VW beetle with a 40 hp engine cranking in 3rd gear to get up the Sierras at 40 mph.
Posted by: sjc | 21 January 2008 at 11:32 AM
Ron
What they claim is pure smog, to decompose H2O you need above 2000 degC at atmospherique pressure (so waste heat is of no help), much more at 50 bars. Plus the burninh of the decomposed H2O will returm no more energy than it required to be decomposed so it oes nowhere. At best it can improve the combustion by speeding up the front flamme which can improve efficiency and cleanless, but certainly not in the amount they claim.
Are you sure that as soon you started to use this additive you didn't change your driving style, you know you can improve your mileage by 30% simply by shifting to a softly driving style. Anyway 10% improvement are not that easy to measure for the reason above, but I am interested to test this additive.
Posted by: Treehugger | 21 January 2008 at 07:40 PM
Jaakko wrote and tole me about a great sight about fuel saving gadgets so I agree that the PICC is most likely not true.
The additive I'm using seems to work for me. My driving habits could have changed a little, I don't know because I recently retired. In Austin,TX (near sea level) the best I ever got on Hwy was 26 MPG. this was pretty consistant on trips to Houston. Now I am at 5500 ft. and with CA40 I got over 30mpg to ABQ then it averaged down to 29.7 mpg on the return trip (360 miles on one tank full). I used the car computer for the mpg reading.
I live near smaller towns now. I call city driving a combination of speeds ranging from 30 mph to 60mph but this was similar to Austin as well. However, I drove about 3 miles to work in Austin, so that may have lowered the city mpg some. The additive is added at 1 oz per 17 gal. When I run out if it, I may see if the milage drops. There are no gizmos to add to the car. Not promoting it, just mentioning it.
Ron
For the CA40 http://www.ca40g.com/home.php
Posted by: Ron | 22 January 2008 at 01:17 PM
@Ron:
1) Higher elevation = less dense air = less aerodynamic drag = better mileage.
2) Trips longer than 3 miles = MUCH better mileage.
3) Additive to the fuel = cleaner fuel injectors = better spray pattern = better mileage.
No mystery here, +3-5 mpg is easy with the above changes.
Posted by: Bill W | 23 January 2008 at 10:16 AM
@Ron:
1) Higher elevation = less dense air = less aerodynamic drag = better mileage.
2) Trips longer than 3 miles = MUCH better mileage.
3) Additive to the fuel = cleaner fuel injectors = better spray pattern = better mileage.
No mystery here, +3-5 mpg is easy with the above changes.
Posted by: Bill W | 23 January 2008 at 10:17 AM
3.9 L/100 km is okay, I did a 10,000 mile journey in the previous model of the fortwo cdi and got 3.6 L/100 (65 mpg US)... check 100mpg.ca
Posted by: Keith | 25 January 2008 at 05:08 PM