Hacker News Reader

I've never been a fan of the Smart line of cars, if only because they are so damned expensive here in the US ($15k for the base model, 39mpg).

I'd toyed with the idea of buying one when they first became available. But the fuel efficiency wasn't as good as some other contemporary vehicle models. And I'd be giving up a whole back seat. And performance was certainly anemic, even by sub-compact car standards.

I'll probably just get a Prius next year. 50 mpg, as actually measured by outside firms like Consumer Reports. That's so impressive. I'd love to get an electric, but they're just too expensive still.

You know what's really impressive? Back in the early 2000s I bought a 1991 Honda CRX HF from a friend, and it got about 48 mpg even with 150k miles on the odometer. That wasn't a hybrid car, just a hyper-efficient gasoline engine in a lightweight body, and it still had enough pep to safely merge on the highway.

One would think a modern plug-in hybrid would get well over 70 mpg.

1991 Honda CRX HF has 40 mpg in city driving when new. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/7474.shtml

A 2017 Prius has 58 city mpg.

You can beat that with an efficient driving style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving

So, they really are significantly better.

Your point may be correct, but it does seem like you're cherry-picking the data. The difference in highway mpg is not nearly so significant:

1991 Honda Civic highway: 47 mpg

2017 Prius highway: 53 mpg

Stop and go conditions are the point of hybrid cars.

At steady highway speeds you gain nothing and need to haul extra weight. Which is why long haul trucks are not all hybrids right now.

So, yes it's not a pure net gain without costs. But, I assume most people can make that prediction fairly accurately.

At steady highway speeds you gain nothing and need to haul extra weight.

The weight penalty isn't as bad as you might imagine. On the Toyotas, the hybrid design replaces the regular transmission, flywheel, and torque converter (if automatic) or clutch (if manual).

So the big weight penalty is mostly the battery pack.

Cars from the 80s and early 90s are not really comparable to modern vehicles. Modern safety regulations add a lot of weight.

A good example of this is the Mazda MX-5. The original model from 1989 weighed 940 kg (2,070 lb). In 2009 Mazda made a special lightweight MX-5 to celebrate the 20th anniversary. It was made of special materials and even removed the windshield to save weight. The resulting car weighed 130 lbs more than the 1989 model.

> That wasn't a hybrid car, just a hyper-efficient gasoline engine in a lightweight body. One would think a modern plug-in hybrid would get well over 70 mpg.

Including the electricity usage, or without it? Because my old 2013 Volt gets a real-world 150 mpg, if you don't count the electricity.

But if you run it on gas alone, it only gets ~40mpg. Largely because, adding 1,000+ pounds of battery means the car will always be way heavier than a "lightweight body" 1991 subcompact.

The fuel efficiency is inexcusable for a car that light and making that little power. The ford fiesta gets the same combined mileage while weighing nearly a thousand pounds more.

> But the fuel efficiency wasn't as good as some other contemporary vehicle models.

That's surprising. How could this be the case given the size?

There are all kinds of tradeoffs you can make with regards to power output, size, weight, time to market, and cost for an engine for a given vehicle. Also, what sells in one market (in the case of the Smart, Europe) may not work so well in another market (USA). IIRC, a lot of the Smarts back then (this was 10 years ago approximately) were diesel, which wasn't going to work in the North American market either.

The expensive parts of cars have little direct relation to their size. Body panels are cheap, transmissions/airbags/brakes not so much.

Which is why SUV's are so profitable as their markup relates to perception not cost.

As far as I understood the article the low price seems to be due to Chinese government subsidies which may not be applicable if sold to another market.

> I've never been a fan of the Smart line of cars, if only because they are so damned expensive here in the US ($15k for the base model, 39mpg).

I was surprised that their mileage was so low. Some sources point at values close to 60mpg but somehow US-based estimates nearly halve those values.

It's very weird, or even unbelievable, how a 2-seat 730kg car with a 0.6l engine is shown has having worse mileage than a 5-seat 1100kg car with a 1.5l engine. Things don't add up.

The interesting part about the smart for me was insurance and taxes. I don´t know where you are from, but in Germany there are some twists to that.

As a young driver you have to pay premium charges to the insurance companies, like five to six times of the normal price if you are an unexperienced driver. Cars which are "unpopular" (especially with young people) are also cheaper...

Due to the small engine, taxes are also very low for smarts.

All in all this made up for the rather high gas use...