BYD's All-Electric e6: Will It Be A Game Changer In The U.S. Market?

[Ivan Seeking]

There it is. Beautiful!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6hU35Vzelc

 

[mgb_phys]

Review of an all electric car being launched in europe.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/08/14/review_e_car_mitsubishi_imiev/

But since it costs 2x as much as the petrol version (which itself does 62mpg-us) you are going to need to do a lot of miles or be seriously green to benefit.

ps Slightly confusingly the petrol version is listed as a zero emission vehicle, this just means it emits <100gCO2/km

 

[OmCheeto]

Gads. You kids can NOT stick to the topic. But while we are at it. I was at work today thumbing through Time magazine and read the following:

"[URL
Does Science Matter?[/URL]
In China, I watched Chu tour the headquarters of a company called ENN — the name is a hybrid of energy and innovation — that was founded as a tiny gas supplier in 1989 by a cabdriver with $200 in his pocket and has expanded into a clean-energy conglomerate with more than 24,000 employees. Chu peppered his hosts with technical questions as he checked out a sleek factory churning out superefficient solar panels, a greenhouse where genetically engineered algae were excreting fuel, a prototype for a coal-gasification plant in Inner Mongolia and a research lab with 300 scientists. It felt like an only-in-America business story, except we were in Langfang, just outside Beijing.

Of course I thought of Ivan and his diesel fuel pooping algae.

BUT WE HAVE TO GET BACK ON TOPIC!

Why did GM opt for a 70 hp kicker engine?

My guess is that it was purely psychological.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Comparing this option to others is entirely on topic.

AKA: Why this car is a bad choice and uncompetitive.

 

[mheslep]

That is all a matter of cost per unit area of algae. If the cost is low enough, say for example by eliminating the cost of land and water, one might produce fuel at a competitive price without any CO2 augmentation at all. There are also other natural and artificial sources, such as the exhuast from cement plants, or the gases produced by rotting vegetation.

The fact is that I achieved what was calculated as ~70% of the required yield per unit area per unit time, on my first attempt, and without any CO2 augmentation, just aeration. Part of what I see as the flaw in popular approaches is the tendency to shoot for theoretical limits. Rather than trying to drive the algae to maximum yields, instead use much less expensive approaches and live with reduced production. The net profit is all that matters.

Interesting.

... As for distribution of energy, there is no option for anything but limited-use cars. Everything else needs fuel. So its not like we can eliminate the transportation fuel infrastructure...

There are already trial programs in place for EV 18 wheelers (80,000 lbs - Port of LA), trains can run electric (not off batteries, yet). NASA has a program for that electric 797. Granted these things are in their infancy, but at $20/$30 gal (if we listen to the Independent article) and with no large production plants in existence yet, then so is 3rd gen biofuel. Another way to view the limitations: algae/cellulosic has the vehicle ~ready to go, it has to prove it can scale up the energy production; where as EVs have the energy ~ready to go, it has to prove it can scale up the vehicle production.

Come on, look at the weight of an electric car compared to the same HP in a diesel car. Look at all of the materials as well as the refining of those materials. Again, follow the money. Energy is largely what drives the cost of production. The Tesla uses something like $40K worth of batteries. We have to look at all of those highly refined materials used in both the motors and batteries, and track those all the way back to raw materials, as well as include the recycling of the materials, and all of the energy [carbon] costs along the way - the cradle to grave energy costs.

I've seen the weight balance between an ICE and EV before (and posted it if I recall). It turns out that the weight balance between a pure EV and an ICE vehicle is roughly a wash, IF the battery capacity is limited to 100 miles (~25kWh). That's with a current battery such as A123's or LG-Chem's. A 100 mi battery, such as the one in the http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/01/2010-nissan-leaf-electric-car-in-person-in-depth-and-u-s-b/", weighs ~200kg, and probably costs $9,000-$14,000. An electric motor can weigh less than half its ICE equivalent in power. Also subtract from the EV budget the usual items found along side the ICE: large radiator and cooling system, exhaust system, fuel system, large transmission, etc.

...Make no mistake, though, as despite clever construction methods, the Leaf's batteries remain heavy, at around 200 kg per car (over 440 pounds). Despite this, Nissan projects that the car's total weight will be similar to that of a comparable gas car because the electric motor is lighter than a traditional internal-combustion engine and because there is no need for a conventional transmission. Of course, there is the added bulk of a power inverter, but on the whole, Nissan believes the car's center-of-gravity will be lower than an I.C. car, so handling might actually be better than the aforementioned Versa.

The Tesla has a 220 mile battery, using laptop cells (lithium cobalt).

Regarding the overall energy budget embodied in a car, somebody did a study on this and it is indeed substantial: it comes out at 15-20% if I recall of the total traveling energy used by the car in its lifetime, but to our point they found the difference in embodied energy by drivetrain (gasoline, diesel, electric) to be very small. No doubt you are skeptical, so I'll look it up and post tomorrow.

Beyond a doubt, the Chevy Volt doesn't even make economic sense today. That is the bottom line when it comes to any option, and every good capitalist knows it.

Agreed. I favor pure EV's, not PHEV's, and battery exchange which I think so configured are economical and practical. Then, without the battery cost up front, a $17,000 car equivalent to a Malibu or a Camry is doable. If its done this way (EV - battery exchange), I believe EV's will win in the market, without exchange I doubt they'll do much in in even 20 years.

Edit: With all the focus on carbon emissions, it's easy to forget about NOx, SOx, and particulate emissions which are a fact of life when burning any kind of hydrocarbon. We're better off if those emissions are out by the power plant (which might not emit any at all), which EVs allow.

 

[mheslep]

Why did GM opt for a 70 hp kicker engine?

My guess is that it was purely psychological.

If they wanted that 300 mile range on top of a 40 mile range battery then something in that range was necessary. If the road could be guaranteed mostly flat, then a ~30-40HP engine would do while running the electric motor off the battery in 'charge sustain' mode at 60 mph. Then consider the case where the road is 150 miles of average uphill followed by 150 miles average downhill, so that it is the energy equivalent of the flat road case. More HP would be required from the engine on the uphill portion to prevent battery depletion. This might mean that for steep long grades (e.g. the Rockies), the Volt might have a problem - even though it has a 150HP electric motor on board adequate to the climb it would not be able to use that motor at more than half power for the longer distances.

 

[OmCheeto]

If they wanted that 300 mile range on top of a 40 mile range battery then something in that range was necessary. If the road could be guaranteed mostly flat, then a ~30-40HP engine would do while running the battery in 'charge sustain' mode at 60 mph. Then consider the case where the road is 150 miles of average uphill followed by 150 miles average downhill, so that it is the energy equivalent of the flat road case. More HP would be required from the engine on the uphill portion to prevent battery depletion. This might mean that for steep long grades (e.g. the Rockies), the Volt might have a problem - even though it has a 150HP electric motor on board adequate to the climb it would not be able to use that motor at more than half power for the longer distances.

hmmm... I wonder what percentage of Americans routinely drive over the Rockies? The logic eludes me as to why they would target the electric range of the vehicle to 78% of drivers, and then put in a kicker motor that targets about 0.00002% of drivers. I'd have put in a 20 hp turbo diesel. Perhaps it's in the (planned obsolescence) works.

New for 2015: the 500 mpg(not really) Volt.

Comparing this option to others is entirely on topic.
AKA: Why this car is a bad choice and uncompetitive.

Ok. I agree that it's price tag is out of my league, but IMHO, it is the closest thing to the perfect American car that Detroit has ever offered us.

 

[mheslep]

hmmm... I wonder what percentage of Americans routinely drive over the Rockies? The logic eludes me as to why they would target the electric range of the vehicle to 78% of drivers, and then put in a kicker motor that targets about 0.00002% of drivers. I'd have put in a 20 hp turbo diesel. Perhaps it's in the (planned obsolescence) works.

I think you're missing the point OmC. The 20hp would not work on anything except a flat or even slightly downhill road with the A/C off. Then you would take minutes not seconds to enter a freeway and come up to speed. That turbo diesel would add even more to the cost of the Volt, which can't spare any more. Are there any light duty diesels running in the US? I had the impression the EPA's extreme NOx and particulate limits were keeping the European makes out (warning: conspiracy theory dead ahead)

 

[mheslep]

hmmm... I wonder what percentage of Americans routinely drive over the Rockies? The logic eludes me as to why they would target the electric range of the vehicle to 78% of drivers, and then put in a kicker motor that targets about 0.00002% of drivers.

I meant much slighter grades like driving W/E around the East coast required the 70HP engine, and that the Rockies might be a problem for the current Volt.

 

[mheslep]

Interview with GM hybrid drive train exec:
http://greenfuelsforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=550

One criticism from detractors of the E-Flex architecture has been the engine won't maintain vehicle performance while operating in charge sustaining mode, requiring lower speeds or "turtling." At the original introduction of the concept, GM officials acknowledged this was one of the issues with the EV1 when its battery charge level dropped too low.

Regarding the Volt, Nitz says that this criticism "is not true to start with." The Volt will be equipped with a 16kWh battery pack that will nominally operate between a 35 and 85 percent state of charge. Vehicles typically do not use the full performance capabilities at all times. When cruising at a relatively constant speed on the highway or even in around town driving, only a small fraction of the performance capability is being used. The full capability typically is only used for transient conditions, such as accelerating along a highway on-ramp or passing another vehicle.

"The range extender does not have the full power to do the dynamic response that the electric side can so you do have to depend on the battery," Nitz says.

The range extender will provide approximately 50kW while the electric drive provides 100kW.

"That vehicle will never use more than 50kW on a continuous basis," Nitz adds.

Even if the battery is at the level where the range extender is engaged, it still has a significant amount of charge left and can provide full power to drive the vehicle in those transient conditions.

"Zero to sixty, passing maneuvers, you'll be fine, the ability to actually use more than about 50kW doesn't exist very frequently," says Nitz.

The battery can be drawn below the 35 percent charge level briefly to support these driving conditions. When steady state driving resumes, the demand on the battery falls below the output of the range extender - allowing the charge to be replenished faster than it is consumed.

"It's designed to be able to go up Baker Hill," a steep hill between Los Angeles and Las Vegas as well as other mountain grades at reasonable speeds "just with the engine," Nitz explains.

A 20HP engine would not allow repeated "Zero to sixty, passing maneuvers," and long hill climbs.

BTW, this "35 to 85%" of charge operating range is an aspect of plugin hybrids that is a large disadvantage economically - a lot of mostly dead weight battery on board. This is not the case with a pure EV.

 

[mheslep]

...Regarding the overall energy budget embodied in a car, somebody did a study on this and it is indeed substantial: it comes out at 15-20% if I recall of the total traveling energy used by the car in its lifetime, but to our point they found the difference in embodied energy by drivetrain (gasoline, diesel, electric) to be very small. No doubt you are skeptical, so I'll look it up and post tomorrow...

Following up:

Electric Powertrains: Opportunities andChallenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet, Kromer & Heywood May 2007. Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
MIT
http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/reports.htm

...A recent study out of Argonne National Labs (ANL) [Moon et al 2006] modeled the embodied energy and GHG emissions for a range of vehicle technologies. Their results estimate that vehicle embodied energy accounts for about 21% of total lifecycle GHG emissions and 18% of total energy use in a conventional spark-ignition vehicle – a sizeable piece of the total. However, the difference between different powertrain technologies is only a fraction of this amount. Figure 6 shows the change in lifecycle energy, relative to the NA-SI engine, for different technologies. In the case of the hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicle, there is little change. While there are non-trivial differences in the manufacturing energy used for these vehicles, the differences are masked by the fact that this embodied energy is only 20% of the total – hence, it is a fraction of a fraction.

NA-SI = naturally aspirated - spark ignition, i.e. current gasoline engines.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

My wife and I just bought a used 2006 VW Jetta TDI, and we are very happy with it. I have to say that it's hard to beat it bang-for-buck in my opinion, being that we bought it for a little under $13K. We have been able to get about 40mpg combined driving and as high as 50mpg hwy at 65-70 mph. The 100hp, 200ft-lb tq turbodiesel engine is a peppy little guy, and is overall very nice to drive.

The car was economically a good choice for us, and at the same time it doesn't feel like we had to make a huge sacrifice in power or drivability like the Prius, or even compared to "better/larger" cars like the Chevy Malibu with an eco-crap 4-cylinder. Its quite surprising to me that there aren't more turbodiesel-powered cars in the US, they are really amazing little engines.

 

[mheslep]

My wife and I just bought a used 2006 VW Jetta TDI, and we are very happy with it. I have to say that it's hard to beat it bang-for-buck in my opinion, being that we bought it for a little under $13K. We have been able to get about 40mpg combined driving and as high as 50mpg hwy at 65-70 mph. The 100hp, 200ft-lb tq turbodiesel engine is a peppy little guy, and is overall very nice to drive. ..

I'm curious about what caused the diesel price premium last year - ~20% over gasoline. Seems to be gone now.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gcprrets.gif
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/dcprrets.gif

 

[russ_watters]

I meant much slighter grades like driving W/E around the East coast required the 70HP engine, and that the Rockies might be a problem for the current Volt.

I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is, but I've driven a 92 horsepower Eagle Talon that could eventually wind itself up to over 100 mph (no torque) but couldn't handle any kind of hill and a 75 (I think) horsepower diesel VW Rabbit that was light and had a lot of torque, but still could barely get up to highway speed. I'm wondering what the actual output of the Volt's drivetrain is. I guess we'll find out during review testing if it can hold speed on a grade for 5 or 10 minutes. That kind of thing is common in Pennsylvania too (same mountains as WV).

 

[mheslep]

I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is, but I've driven a 92 horsepower Eagle Talon that could eventually wind itself up to over 100 mph but couldn't handle any kind of hill and a 75 (I think) horsepower diesel VW Rabbit that was light but still could barely get up to highway speed. I'm wondering what the actual output of the Volt's drivetrain is. I guess we'll find out during review testing if it can hold speed on a grade for 5 or 10 minutes. That kind of thing is common in Pennsylvania too (same mountains as WV).

Its relevant in that it partially demonstrates why OmC's 20HP engine won't do.

To be clear, the electric motor is the only motor mechanically connected to the wheels in a serial hybrid plugin like the Volt and that motor is rated 150HP - adequate for hill climbing when it is supplied with rated current. One mode of operating the vehicle then is for the first 40 miles the 70HP ICE is simply off, and the electric motor runs only from the battery. When the battery reaches 30% state of charge, then the ICE kicks on and starts generating power for the battery. If the tractive load on the electric motor is, say, ~70HP (neglecting losses) from a slight grade or acceleration demand, then the vehicle meets the demand of the driver and the battery is not further depleted with the ICE running at full power.

If the vehicle is climbing a major hill as you described, then let us say the electric motor has to draw ~150HP to climb it, and it will deplete the battery at rate of 80HP down below 30% of full charge for the time to climb the hill. The vehicle controller has some programmed limit as to how long it will allow that to happen before it says no more and forces the power supplied to the motor back to down to 70HP. It will not allow the battery to ever reach full discharge, or anywhere close to that.

Figure 7 from the Kromer et al reference above attached to illustrate the two modes in PHEVs like the Volt - charge depletion (1st 40 miles), and charge sustaining.

 

[russ_watters]

If the tractive load on the electric motor is, say, ~70HP (neglecting losses) from a slight grade or acceleration demand, then the vehicle meets the demand of the driver and the battery is not further depleted with the ICE running at full power.

If the vehicle is climbing a major hill as you described, then let us say the electric motor has to draw ~150HP to climb it, and it will deplete the battery at rate of 80HP down below 30% of full charge for the time to climb the hill. The vehicle controller has some programmed limit as to how long it will allow that to happen before it says no more and forces the power supplied to the motor back to down to 70HP. It will not allow the battery to ever reach full discharge, or anywhere close to that.

And that's my question: what is that performance like, when the car is running as a direct gas-electric? In a regular car, it is my understanding that you lose something like 35% of your power via the drivetrain. So that would mean a 70 hp engine can put 70*.65=45.5 hp to the ground. How much horsepower can the volt put to the ground in this mode? Possible sample calc:

Gas engine drivetrain loss: 10% (I'm assuming a gearbox and clutch).
Generator efficiency: 95%
Power conversion efficiency: 95%
Electric motor efficiency: 95%
Electric motor to wheel drivetrain loss: 10%

Resultant horsepower to the ground: 70*.9*.95*.95*.95*.9=48.6 hp.

I think people are going to want to know what that performance is actually like, lest they find themselves unpleasantly surpised when they suddenly can't go more than 35 mph on a moderately graded highway in the poconos.

Incidentally, a couple of years ago I went on a trip from PA to WV to see a WVU football game and my buddy's Saturn could not maintain highway speed on the interstate on the way there. He had to drop a gear and run at around 55 mph. My Mazda 6i, with 160 hp (but a much bigger car than a Saturn or a Volt) is marginal on similar roads in PA (I can keep 70 mph, but have to do it in 4th gear).

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm curious about what caused the diesel price premium last year - ~20% over gasoline. Seems to be gone now.

I'm not sure what caused that spike. From what I understand diesel prices tend to rise in the winter (due to higher heating oil demand) and fall in the summer, but I'm not sure what other drivers affect diesel pricing.

I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is, but I've driven a 92 horsepower Eagle Talon that could eventually wind itself up to over 100 mph (no torque) but couldn't handle any kind of hill and a 75 (I think) horsepower diesel VW Rabbit that was light and had a lot of torque, but still could barely get up to highway speed.

Our diesel Jetta has 100hp (but more importantly 200ft-lbs of torque) and is able to easily maintain 75 or even 65 mph on a 10% grade in 6th gear. It's no slouch in acceleration IMO either (0-60 is around 9 seconds I think) and can get to 100mph no problem. Overall it's very zippy in highway driving and passing situations. Of course you don't get maximum mileage when you're flooring it though...

My point is that it takes more than horsepower to determine driving performance...

 

[Kenneth Mann]

Here are a few more articles on the volt, etc.

KM

http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/11/chevy-volt-gets-230-mpg-city-epa-rating/"
http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/13/gm-still-claims-volt-will-get-40-all-electric-miles-both-highway-and-city-but-under-what-conditions/"
http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/24/the-chevy-volts-electric-range-is-40-miles-in-both-highway-and-city-driving/"
http://gm-volt.com/2007/10/22/under-what-conditions-is-the-chevy-volts-quoted-40-mile-electric-range-modelled/"
http://gm-volt.com/2009/07/08/driving-the-mini-e-electric-car-the-first-1200-miles/"
http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/08/gm-planning-all-electric-city-car/"
http://gm-volt.com/2009/07/31/report-mitsubishi-confirms-it-will-launch-extended-range-electric-car-in-2010/"
http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/07/is-tesla-planning-to-build-an-e-rev-too/"

 

[mheslep]

And that's my question: what is that performance like, when the car is running as a direct gas-electric? In a regular car, it is my understanding that you lose something like 35% of your power via the drivetrain. So that would mean a 70 hp engine can put 70*.65=45.5 hp to the ground. How much horsepower can the volt put to the ground in this mode? Possible sample calc:

Gas engine drivetrain loss: 10% (I'm assuming a gearbox and clutch).
Generator efficiency: 95%
Power conversion efficiency: 95%
Electric motor efficiency: 95%
Electric motor to wheel drivetrain loss: 10%

Resultant horsepower to the ground: 70*.9*.95*.95*.95*.9=48.6 hp.

I think people are going to want to know what that performance is actually like, lest they find themselves unpleasantly surpised when they suddenly can't go more than 35 mph on a moderately graded highway in the poconos.

I think you're mostly right about the loss assumptions. I'd drop possibly the gear/clutch on the gas engine - as the generator should be able to take whatever the engine cares to put out, at a pace the engine likes, and add another 5% power conversion loss going in/out of the battery.

The combustion engine power delivered to the ground, whatever it is, is sufficient to climb a 6% grade continuously at 'reasonable speed' (inferring from the http://www.norkarecreation.com/ride542/Graphics/updatedprofile.jpeg" in Ca statement by GM above). The Volt will climb steeper still by temporarily depleting the battery below its 'sustain' point, but that can't last long (couple minutes?)

Another way to think about the Volt is to imagine a regular combustion engine vehicle with a 150HP motor, but with only enough gas in the tank to go about 45 miles. Once you hit 40 miles, further imagine someone starts slowly trickling more gas into the tank, with the trickling rate such that with average driving one can go another couple hundred miles. At any time you can, if you like, stomp on it but if you keep your foot down you'll get ahead of the trickle.

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes. The Baker Hill scenario makes sense. Though one thing that went through my mind yesterday was the actual output of the 70 hp engine. Few engines are run at full power continuously. Those that are, have fairly short lifespans: outboard motors, indy racers, etc. I would imagine that the ICE would actually only be required to generate a few hp during daily, non-Pikes Peak Rally, back and forth to work treks. So a 70 hp engine does make sense. Though I think they should offer a 20 hp option for people in Kansas. Or maybe 21 hp if they make a lot of trips to the top of Mt. Sunflower.

 

[mgb_phys]

Thats the advantage of a turbo diesel. You can build a 20-30hp engine that is perfectly adequate for driving around town but put a 100-120Hp sticker on it so people will buy it.

 

[mgb_phys]

The electric version of the Smart:
Power: 30 kW (41 hp) from 13.2 kWh battery
Range 110 kilometers / 68 miles (193 Wh/mile)
Recharge time (80%): four hours (100%): eight hours
Top speed: 120 km/h 74.6 mph


Although somehow I don't think this is going to catch on in the USA

 

[mheslep]

The electric version of the Smart:
Power: 30 kW (41 hp) from 13.2 kWh battery
Range 110 kilometers / 68 miles (193 Wh/mile)
Recharge time (80%): four hours (100%): eight hours
Top speed: 120 km/h 74.6 mph


Although somehow I don't think this is going to catch on in the USA

Base price of the gasoline version is apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#Made_for_US_market". I wonder how much the EV version costs? The 13 kWh battery should cost ~$6k, or about 4cents/mile.

 

[mgb_phys]

Base price of the gasoline version is apparently $12k

UK price is estimated 12,000 GBP (the gas version is around 9000 GBP)

Interestingly (for this thread) the eu catagorise them on khw/100km (or wh/mile for the uk) but also on the amount of CO2 they emit based on the source of the grid power. So this is road tax exempt because charging it emits 60 gCO2/km, the limit is 100 gCO2/km which the smart diesel also manages.

 

[mheslep]

UK price is estimated 12,000 GBP (the gas version is around 9000 GBP)

Interestingly (for this thread) the eu catagorise them on khw/100km (or wh/mile for the uk) but also on the amount of CO2 they emit based on the source of the grid power. So this is road tax exempt because charging it emits 60 gCO2/km, the limit is 100 gCO2/km which the smart diesel also manages.

The source of the grid power? How does one determine that, other than to average all sources (coal, wind, nuclear,...)? Also, I thought part of the reason for allowing only zero emission vehicles into, say London during the day, was to cut on the downtown toxic emissions - SOx, NOx and particulates. The EV zeros those emissions in the city while the diesel never will.

 

[mheslep]

UK price is estimated 12,000 GBP (the gas version is around 9000 GBP)

So a difference of ~$5,000. Sounds about right. $6,000 battery minus some savings for a cheaper electric only drive train. Still, they need to separate the battery from the upfront purchase price somehow - perhaps make it a subscription per mile - otherwise the EV is too expensive.

 

[Andre]

The top 113 fuel efficent models in the UK do better than 50mpg-US combined.

These aren't Smart microcars, they are mostly 90+Hp turbo diesel hatchbacks.

For some strange reason none of these seem to be available in the US/Canada, even though some of them are built by an American company.
Seat and Skoda aren't familar in America - they are basically rebadged VW Polo/Golf


Maker Model Urban Highway Combined (mpg US)

SEAT Ibiza 1.4 TDI 48.0 73.5 61.9
Volkswagen Polo 1.4 TDI 48.0 73.5 61.9
Mini MINI 50.0 67.2 60.3
Citroen C1 1.4HDi 44.4 69.2 57.4
Mini MINI R55 48.0 65.4 57.4
Skoda Fabia 1.4 TDI 44.4 69.2 57.4
Fiat 500 1.3 16v 44.4 65.4 56.0
Ford Fiesta 44.4 67.2 56.0
Ford Fiesta 1.6 TDCi 45.2 65.4 56.0

Anyway to format tables here?

Hmm
Hmm wasn't my car world record holder mileage? 90.2 mpg. But then again that must be the diesel hybrid. Mine (1.6, 110hp TDi) is not better than about 60 mpg.

 

[mheslep]

Anyway to format tables here?

Latex, but it's cumbersome at first.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2230803&postcount=405
https://www.physicsforums.com/latex_images/22/2230803-0.png

 

[mheslep]

The top 113 fuel efficent models in the UK do better than 50mpg-US combined.

These aren't Smart microcars, they are mostly 90+Hp turbo diesel hatchbacks.

For some strange reason none of these seem to be available in the US/Canada, even though some of them are built by an American company.
Seat and Skoda aren't familar in America - they are basically rebadged VW Polo/Golf...

As I understand it, the EPA's extremely strict diesel emissions standards keep most of those vehicles out of the US. [speculation]There maybe a bit of a fix here. I suspect Detroit encouraged the EPA to raise diesel standards in order to keep the Euro diesels out, since generally they grown better at making diesel engines. [/speculation]

 

[Integral]

Base price of the gasoline version is apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#Made_for_US_market". I wonder how much the EV version costs? The 13 kWh battery should cost ~$6k, or about 4cents/mile.

I was at about mile marker 220 in Oregon heading south doing about 70mph when a Smart car with California plates PASSED me. Since no one lives in the northern 200mi of Cali, this lady was probably looking at another 500mi in that little thing. Wonder if she could maintain 75mph over the Syskiyous?