Smart Engine...

[jetpack54]

What do you guys think of the 2016 Smart For two engine? Their US version's 0.9-liter turbo-charged three cylinder delivers 89 hp and 100 lb-ft of torque. Smart says 0-62 mph takes 10.4 seconds, and top speed of 96 mph. No EPA mileage yet but the car weighs in at 1,984 lb and priced (est.) $15,000. base. Now for that money, I would rather buy me a Versa Note! But my main reason for posting is trying to compare EM's new engine- if EM can deliver the ELIO weighing close to the promised 1,200 weight, then definitely 55 horses and no turbo is well within reach of the 84 mpg goal! I believe EM's next announcement is the result of the engine testing- but I'll also take any announcement on the funding situation!

 

[Ty]

What do you guys think of the 2016 Smart For two engine? Their US version's 0.9-liter turbo-charged three cylinder delivers 89 hp and 100 lb-ft of torque. Smart says 0-62 mph takes 10.4 seconds, and top speed of 96 mph. No EPA mileage yet but the car weighs in at 1,984 lb and priced (est.) $15,000. base. Now for that money, I would rather buy me a Versa Note! But my main reason for posting is trying to compare EM's new engine- if EM can deliver the ELIO weighing close to the promised 1,200 weight, then definitely 55 horses and no turbo is well within reach of the 84 mpg goal! I believe EM's next announcement is the result of the engine testing- but I'll also take any announcement on the funding situation!

The Smart cars are not known for having very good fuel mileage. Yes, it's better than a lot of vehicles but for their weight, it is pretty abysmal. The frontal area probably has a lot to do with that in addition to their anti-aero styling. I think you are getting at the fact that their engine and Elio's engine should be about comparable in size and capability. That capability in the Elio engine isn't utilized as they are going to use a much more rudimentary fuel management system. However, you see that the 89HP only gets the Smart to 96 and 10.4 second 0 - 60. I'd bet that is mostly due to aerodynamic drag. hopefully, the Elio engine will pair very well with the aerodynamics of the vehicle as well as the lower weight. I'll bet the Elio hits its 84 mpg target.

 

[Gas-Powered Awesome]

To expand what Ty said: The Smart is not an economy car or highway cruiser. It is a city car meant to navigate tight European urban centers at low speeds. We don't have those so Marketing (aka liars) re-branded it here to sell it to gullible Americans who failed to read the Monroney sticker.

That said, it's a neat little engine, but undersized for the vehicle. The turbo will be in boost frequently to get that much weight moving, which kills mileage. See the EcoBoost in the medium and large Ford products like the Flex. It doesn't get good mileage in those because the engine is too small and is in boost too much.

I agree that with the better aerodynamics and lighter weight that the Elio will get close to it's goal without a turbo and much less HP. It's the low-rpm torque that will do the best job of getting us there.

 

[Johnapool]

While we have probably not even come close to wringing the most power from the least fuel utilizing internal combustion engines, other than improving engine efficiency (turbos, valves, etc.), there is really no way to produce more horsepower without consuming more fuel. Yes, a 900cc engine can produce LOTS of horsepower, but not for free.
Paul Elio's concept, a light, streamlined body, less weight to carry, less resistance to airflow, less rolling resistance (one less tire), all requiring less horsepower, is a very smart idea. Don't feed the horses.....
The simplicity of the Elio engine is a huge plus for longevity and ease of repair.

The old Honda C70 Passport scooters got about 80-84 mpg, sans roof, ac, etc. Kinda fun, but I'll take the Elio. Those old C70s are worth many times the original cost these days. I wonder what a 2015 Elio will bring in 2050?

 

[jetpack54]

The Smart cars are not known for having very good fuel mileage. Yes, it's better than a lot of vehicles but for their weight, it is pretty abysmal. The frontal area probably has a lot to do with that in addition to their anti-aero styling. I think you are getting at the fact that their engine and Elio's engine should be about comparable in size and capability. That capability in the Elio engine isn't utilized as they are going to use a much more rudimentary fuel management system. However, you see that the 89HP only gets the Smart to 96 and 10.4 second 0 - 60. I'd bet that is mostly due to aerodynamic drag. hopefully, the Elio engine will pair very well with the aerodynamics of the vehicle as well as the lower weight. I'll bet the Elio hits its 84 mpg target.

You're absolutely right about the more streamlined silhouette of the ELIO that'll be gliding and slicing through the air for less resistance. After all, it's half a car!

 

[jetpack54]

To expand what Ty said: The Smart is not an economy car or highway cruiser. It is a city car meant to navigate tight European urban centers at low speeds. We don't have those so Marketing (aka liars) re-branded it here to sell it to gullible Americans who failed to read the Monroney sticker.

That said, it's a neat little engine, but undersized for the vehicle. The turbo will be in boost frequently to get that much weight moving, which kills mileage. See the EcoBoost in the medium and large Ford products like the Flex. It doesn't get good mileage in those because the engine is too small and is in boost too much.

I agree that with the better aerodynamics and lighter weight that the Elio will get close to it's goal without a turbo and much less HP. It's the low-rpm torque that will do the best job of getting us there.

I agree!

 

[WilliamH]

To expand what Ty said: The Smart is not an economy car or highway cruiser. It is a city car meant to navigate tight European urban centers at low speeds. We don't have those so Marketing (aka liars) re-branded it here to sell it to gullible Americans who failed to read the Monroney sticker.

That said, it's a neat little engine, but undersized for the vehicle. The turbo will be in boost frequently to get that much weight moving, which kills mileage. See the EcoBoost in the medium and large Ford products like the Flex. It doesn't get good mileage in those because the engine is too small and is in boost too much.

I agree that with the better aerodynamics and lighter weight that the Elio will get close to it's goal without a turbo and much less HP. It's the low-rpm torque that will do the best job of getting us there.

I think part of that is people who select the wrong size engine for the intended use.
My regular vehicle is a 2011 F150 Lariat e/w 3.5L EcoBoost, 3.73 posi and 4x4.
On a run from Junction, TX to Binghamton,NY I got 17.5 MPG.
Good mileage for what it is. Don't know how that would work out with the new 2.7L EcoBoost.

 

[jetpack54]

While we have probably not even come close to wringing the most power from the least fuel utilizing internal combustion engines, other than improving engine efficiency (turbos, valves, etc.), there is really no way to produce more horsepower without consuming more fuel. Yes, a 900cc engine can produce LOTS of horsepower, but not for free.
Paul Elio's concept, a light, streamlined body, less weight to carry, less resistance to airflow, less rolling resistance (one less tire), all requiring less horsepower, is a very smart idea. Don't feed the horses.....
The simplicity of the Elio engine is a huge plus for longevity and ease of repair.

The old Honda C70 Passport scooters got about 80-84 mpg, sans roof, ac, etc. Kinda fun, but I'll take the Elio. Those old C70s are worth many times the original cost these days. I wonder what a 2015 Elio will bring in 2050?

Simplicity is definitely the key! I like working on my cars and if the simplest of jobs like replacing the oil filter in a less crowded engine bay is a plus for me! Our cars never seen the dealership again once it leaves their lot. I just replaced the front passenger side door lock actuator on my wife's 2004 Honda CR-V (174,000 miles) that went bad- the part costs only $39. Dealer cost to repair it- $300.00. I also replaced the 02 sensor, bank 1, upstream on the same car for just $156.00 for the part. Dealer cost to replace it labor and part- $600.00. With the ELIO, it'll be HALF the work!

 

[ross]

Remember opening the hood and recognizing everything there and being able to get at it? I'll admit I don't miss changing points, plugs, and condenser every 30,000 miles, but I just changed a broken drive axle in a 1948 Allis Chalmers model G tractor. I had the engine, radiator and gas tank off in less than an hour, bellhousing off and tranny open 30 minutes later, rear wheel and tire, axle housing and axle out all in under three hours total. Everything open and easy to get to and figure out. KISS Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

[Coss]

Remember opening the hood and recognizing everything there and being able to get at it? I'll admit I don't miss changing points, plugs, and condenser every 30,000 miles, but I just changed a broken drive axle in a 1948 Allis Chalmers model G tractor. I had the engine, radiator and gas tank off in less than an hour, bellhousing off and tranny open 30 minutes later, rear wheel and tire, axle housing and axle out all in under three hours total. Everything open and easy to get to and figure out. KISS Keep It Simple Stupid.

How about doing a 74 VW Beetle clutch; motor out, split, clutch change and resurface flywheel, put back together, back in the car and running in 30 minutes. I did so many late 60's and early 70's I could do them in my sleep. Same with 70's Chrysler/Dodge starters. That little gear is what made them sound like they were laughing at you; that's what would break in the freezing winter months.