spritmonitor fuel economy - a comparison

[MikeT 744]

Here are some benchmarks to compare your cars to. If you're not already a member of www.sprtimonitor.de, join and start posting results! Dozens of Club smart Car members post there. Plus you can put a cool MPG or L/100 km icon in your signature.

The benchmarks:

According to spritmonitor, the 45 kW (62 HP) 698 cc gasoline smart 450 averages 5.88 L/100 km, with the lowest consumption being 4.57 and the highest being 7.95. That's from 179 cars and 2.45 million km.

See: 450 62 HP gasoline

______________

According to the same source, the 451 with 52 kW (71 HP) engine averages 6.62 L/100 km, with the lowest conmsumption being 5.61 and the highest being 8.17. That's from 31 cars and 132,000 km.

See: 451 71 HP gasoline

______________

The 451 Turbo 62 kW engine which North Americans are NOT getting averages 6.82 L/100 km, with the lowest consumption being 6.2 L/100 km and the highest being 7.71. That is a sample size of 22 cars, with 107,000 km.

See: 451 84 HP gasoline turbo

______________

Finally, the diesels:

The 450 30 kW diesel averages 4.12 L/100 km, with the lowest fuel consumption being 2.82 and the worst being 5.37. That is a sample size of 390 cars, with 10,200,000 km on them.

See: 450 cdi 41 HP

______________

The 451 33 kW diesel which we are being denied averages 4.65 L/100 km, with the lowest consumption at 3.85 and the highest at 5.43. That is a sample size of 32 cars with 170,000 km between them.

See: 451 cdi 45 HP

[smartzuuk 167]

The 2.82 is a bunk one fillup number for the cdiThe 2.92, 2.99 and 3.05 seem reliable. Look at the kms on the 3.05 - hitting 200,000 now.If only I could have one spare smart just for driving in hyper-fuel-economy runs.... I'd be the first loser after Serge

[Francesco 71]

Wow, I think I'm heading toward that upper percentile. I'm over 4.85 now, and the last four tanks have been over 5.0 LHK. Yesterday I topped up in the States (no big savings either -- unleaded is still cheap compared to here, but diesel is almost at par) and it was too cold and windy to stand there trickling in the usual extra litre or two. I nevertheless got enough in to give a 5.15... another litre would have put it around 5.6 LHK. Ugh. This will be a long winter.ETA: FWIW, on the drive home, the first blob disappeared at 101 Km, on a back-roads drive averaging 90 Km/h.

[kristian 0]

I here ya SameGuy, I am crossing the 30,000 mark and still averaging in and around 5L/100. I don't understand what i am doing wrong. I drive at reasonable speeds, I have even tried going 80 in 6th gear, and still only manage to pull out low 4's. Can someone confirm or deny the rumor that you may need to get your computer chip reset at a certain milage to change the fuel consumption rates. That there might be a break in period that doesn't always get reset, so fuel consumption levels stay up...

[MikeT 744]

The 2.82 is a bunk one fillup number for the cdi

firstbaseone has 27,000 km of records in there.....We do have a member here with a bunk one fillup "2.9 average" which does not appear in my query, because I only searched for records >1500 km.The good onld 450 cdi seems to be the "CO2 Champion".

[smartzuuk 167]

Uh... okay, I must have clicked on the name, not the car. Wow, I find some of those numbers to be, well, suspect. What makes his sub 2.0 numbers show in pink? But 2.82 is possible overall, so this guy must be driving for the world record. He had a tuning entry in Oct 06 - anyone read the German on it? Eco-remap? I also saw he uses 0/30 Castrol. Maybe that's the trick. I still would like a stock Euro map of the ECU to try.

[kristian 0]

When I compare myself to that list I am in the bottom 13 cars for economy. Anyone? I mean that is horrible. Any suggestions?

[Francesco 71]

Oh, yay! I'm only on page 25 of 26 and a bit!

I've put "fuel consumption" on my list of things to check out on Monday morning, along with the mysterious "thunk" and the fuel door lock that's gone AWOL.

[Guest kwaldron]

I had erroneously entered my car as having 40 kw engine. Fixed it and now I'm page 17. Whohoo.And the trick is not to run in 6th at 80, but 6th at 60 on level ground. Accelerate smartly, shifting quickly, don't over-rev into the highest gear the engine will run for your selected speed.

[Duck 16]

I don't like that there is such a huge range in consumption on the cdi's... it should be narrower, that just proves right there that some people get "good" cars and other people get "bad" cars-Iain

[kristian 0]

60km/h? lol... ya not going to happen on the #1 highway in saskatchewan... some farmer or trucker would be pickin you out of their grill at those speeds... They are kinda dream drivers around here, not a whole lot to look at.

[smartzuuk 167]

...that just proves right there that some people get "good" cars and other people get "bad" cars

It's generally well documented that the driver ultimately controls the fuel economy to a greater degree than all other other factors all combined together. Severe weather aside (even I don't try or expect to do better than 4.0 in sub zero snowy conditions), I think everyone can achieve the Transport Canada numbers for the smart (4.2 overall) if they want to. (Sameguy I grant, may have some yet to be diagnosed issue.)Perhaps we've made it too much of an importance, and somehow made certain owners feel they're not smart enough to get good economy? Perhaps indirectly, but not intentionally. I know even Duck has gotten some pretty stellar numbers when he gave himself the chance.

[Francesco 71]

Well, I thought I was headed the right direction in late summer when I got a couple of tanks in the low 4s and one at 3.90 (which was likely a short fill to some extent -- maybe would've been 4.1 or so). If the winter storm warning for tonight and tomorrow turns out to be just a normal big snow and not a blizzard, we'll see what West Island MB says tomorrow. But it seems every time I voice an initial query about something (a noise or an aggravation), they give me a pat on the head and a lolly and send me on my way... only to return soon with a bigger issue related to what I had been imagining. So far they've told me every noise I've heard is normal -- including when my LP pump died. They also repeat that my car being far less powerful than their 20000 Km '05 coupe is "normal" as is my 5 LHK FC.I'm off tomorrow morning so I will make it a point to speak directly with the tech and ask him to check the fuel metering and the wastegate. Anything else he should check?

[Guest kwaldron]

One way to determine whether the economy issue is with you or the car is to get someone who lives close by and gets better economy to drive it for about 100 km in city and hwy conditions using a Scangauge and see what they can achieve. If you go with them and they do better you will be able to observe their driving habits.Someone mentioned 60 km/h in 6th wasn't realistic on a highway. I wasn't mentioning a highway. Try it in the city. On a highway try not to do over about 105, as it's about there that economy starts to drop off. I've always said I can easily get better economy in the city than the hwy, but even on a hwy, once you're up to speed and for a good long run the engine will finally heat up and economy can be surprising.As an example of city driving, I make a regular 10 km run just about every night, with the engine still warm from having driven home from the train. There are a few lights, and I have to stop one place to drop someone off. I anticipate the lights so I am rarely caught by them There are some good relatively long stretches that are at between 50 and 60 kph. In the summer I regularly achieve economy in the 3.1-3.3 range, sometimes as low as 2.9. Come the winter, it's more like 3.8-4.2. Nothing much to be done about the latter.Now my runs to and from the train, which are both 4.5 km on a stone cold engine won't get me any more than about 4.5-4.7 in winter, if I miss the lights. There's nothing I can do about that, except add a block heater which will help a bit one way. A cold engine is just going to need more diesel.On occasion I get a bit "frisky" and like to zip around in traffic. Then the economy is more like what it sounds like you are getting.

[Polar Attack 0]

When I compare myself to that list I am in the bottom 13 cars for economy. Anyone? I mean that is horrible. Any suggestions?

hmmm .. i'd love to have your numbers.

[kristian 0]

5... lol... ya they aren't too good... I went down to Colorado and drove 90-100 the whole way... you can see the numbers from July, not fantastic for such a long trip and such nice weather.

[IMSMRT 0]

everyone is also relying on the good faith of the owner reporting those numbers. Who says there isn't some fudge factor going on just to be on top? a few km here and there and over time you miraculously have a car that actually generates fuel as it drives... Just because its on the internet doesn't mean its the truth.

[MikeT 744]

It's better than the alternative, which is: my car goes for a week on a tank!Boo yeah!

[IMSMRT 0]

True. But it the numbers you are all living by could just be a figment of someones imagination.

[MikeT 744]

The thing that bugs me a little is the guys who do maybe 4-5 fills and then call it quits (especially if that results in a "good" number). That's why my search required at least 1500 km of records. Maybe I should do another with a 10,000 km filter (which would eliminate most 451s).It's pretty much impossible to fake 100,000 km of records, unless the person is totally nuts.

[gauchorojo 1]

Man,I'd love to get a hold of one of the 33kw cdi engines! Has anyone heard of anyone in Europe doing a retrofit from the 30kw to the 33kw? The fuel efficiency seems considerable better, no?Cheers,

[MikeT 744]

Theoretically, yes, in practise, no......

[MikeT 744]

The 450 30 kW diesel averages 4.12 L/100 km, with the lowest fuel consumption being 2.82 and the worst being 5.37.

The 451 33 kW diesel which (we are being denied) averages 4.65 L/100 km, with the lowest consumption at 3.85 and the highest at 5.43.

So nearly a year later, and the numbers have shifted slightly:

Now the 450 cdi fleet average is slightly higher, at 4.16 L/100 km (2.74 -> 5.98). The 5.98 L/100 car is owned by a person from Club smart Québec!

Now the 451 cdi fleet average is lower, at 4.47 L/100 km (3.41 -> 5.61).

So as time goes by, perhaps the numbers will converge, or at least get a bit closer still. However, it seems that the 450 cdi will remain the more economical car, at least until the 451 cdi mhd is introduced.

Edit by smartzuuk: changed the bolded section to model 451 from 450

Edited October 23, 2008 by smartzuuk

[Francesco 71]

I think it might be very reasonable to blame the new gearbox for real-world FE numbers not being too shiny.

[Nextourer 1]

and I believe the 451 gasser is at 6.xL/100km? I remember you told me once Mike but I forgot.