Motor Trend first drive of the Volt

Yeah I know that but why the hate of Premium. I am assuming Premium is our 95 - your 91? Our 92 ron unleaded (your 88) was killed off years ago and I don't think it ever made it in the UK.

In some way I see where you're coming from though, as some cars here only use Super (98 ron) and are non too popular either. Though super unleaded costs about £1.21 a litre ($1.94 a liter or $7.37 US gallon).

 

Absolutely. But I have long-thought the BMW mini overpriced/overhyped anyway. Detroit can make a 305 horsepower engine run on regular grade and motivate a heavy Mustang while getting 31 mpg on the highway.

The problem with the Smart car is that it fails in all areas. It is slow, it is unsafe, it has no cargo capacity, its mileage is poor, and it is not even inexpensive. And these are not subjective opinions; they are demonstrable fact. It is certainly one of the best examples in modern society of people buying image rather than substance, because that's all it has; the image of a modest car offering mere functional transportation. And yet when compared against other vehicles like the Yaris, Fit, Versa it is not competitive. So the few people who do buy Smart (and thankfully most people know better, which is why Smart is up against a wall right now with sales and can't sucker enough people into its showrooms) are buying it for whatever image they think it projects that they find desirable.

Interestingly, Smart has now made an agreement with Nissan to sell a rebadged four seater nissan with the smart brand. I think that says a lot about their offering.

 

But it wasn't designed for the US. It was designed for Europe, for narrow streets and where parking is at a premium and where fuel is expensive. That's probably why it wasn't sold in the US until the car had been out for nearly 10 years.

The Smart is at home in the narrow streets over here and we accept that whilst it is fun and 'nippy' to drive in the city, it will be compromised on the open road.

Another car which you will probably be getting shortly, though will probably not appreciate because it is so similar to the Smart is the Toyota (or Scion) IQ. My girlfriend has just bought one of these and absolutely loves it. It has economy close to the Prius and is easy to drive, is happy at 60 mph on the highway and will turn on a sixpence (which is very small and I mean VERY small). You can park it pretty much anywhere and it squeezes through the tightest of gaps. Down sides - it is very very tiny, is a 2+2 seater OR 2 seater with a boot/trunk and sounds a bit odd as its 1 litre engine is a 3 pot. Will have to post some pics of it on here soon.

 

Yeah, the Smart can make sense in Europe. In the US it makes none that I can tell.

The Scion IQ is strange, it looks like a miniaturized large car--like a charicature. I'll reserve judgement until I see its price, gas economy, performance, capacity, safety, etc. I can hardly believe a production US car will actually look like this, though. It's like a prototype at a car show that didn't get nixed by a "benign" design department for production:
Scion iQ Coming By Early 2011 - Scion new small car plans - Motor Trend Auto News

Perhaps the Scion could be what the smart should be

 

Oh no, what have they done to it? The Jap & Euro version doesn't look anything like that! Ours is a bit more reserved;

New Toyota IQ Car Review - Parker's

 

While all gasoline is cheap in the U.S., premium is noticeably more expensive. I believe that is the origin of the "premium hate", as you describe it. Most people don't want to pay more for something that gives no visible benefit. People in the U.S. are largely bargain hunters, and will pay more in the long term to get a good deal up front. If you need an example, look at the way we buy cell phones.

Tom

 

This is UK-centric, I don't know what happened in continental Europe.

Historically, we had high levels of lead in petrol: most cars used 'four-star', about 98 RON. The number of stars indicated the octane number and ranged from one (can't find a reference, but presumably 89 RON) up to five (101 RON) in 3 RON steps; three-star was 95 RON. If your engine was knocking you could go up another step, when pumps allowed you to select the mix you wanted. These pumps were more complex, though, and harder to control the actual mix delivered, and were typically replaced with two pumps offering two-star and four-star, for low- and high-compression engines respectively.

When 95 RON unleaded was introduced, to go with catalytic converters, it replaced two-star as a compromise - filling stations didn't have to replace all their equipment, cars needing two-star didn't need to be adjusted, four-star cars only needed a little adjustment. Leaded wasn't banned for quite a while after the introduction of unleaded, and four-star continued to be sold. However, quite a lot of people had the timing adjusted to run 95 RON rather than 98, and four-star died out relatively quickly.

I do recall from holidays in Denmark at the end of the 80s that they had unleaded before we did; my parents converted our 1986 Ford Orion in around 1988 I think, then the 1990 Orion had a catalytic converter and was designed for 95 RON unleaded.

 

Yeah very interesting Mike, but why does Europe need higher octane ratings?

I remember when unleaded came along and it was 95 ron octane and I used to run my old Datsun on it. A few years later on 98 octane unleaded turned up whilst running along side leaded petrol.

But why did Europe chose 95 ron (91 usa) unleaded in the mid 1980's when the US had had unleaded for about 15 years already? Why not just use the same octane rating and set a common standard?

 

I've seen the premium hate here. A friend of mine complains about the 10% ethonal reducing performance in his Camry, but won't try going up to the midgrade. Even though it is the recommended fuel for the V6.

It even keeps people from properly judging a car. They see premium and automaticly discount it. Most modern cars with a premium fuel engine don't require it. My parents have only put regular into their 2004 Acura TL for 100k miles, and still got 30+ mpg on the highway. The Smart can run on regular. The Volt likely does too. Premium just lets them eke out a little more preformance and/or efficiency.

 

But Volt requires premium fuel. Here is why. "Interesting" engineering challenges that could have been avoided.

 

They weren't doing it for more power. If I recall it was for more MPG. Make the car look better on paper and let the owners pay premium.

I don't know if I buy that either since Prius was designed to get the best MPG with regular gas.

 

Here's a new article on the Motor Trend review of the Chevy Volt hybrid: Chevy Volt Gets 127 MPG in Real World Driving [2011 Plug-in Hybrid Chevy Volt Consumes Only 2.36 Gallons of Fuel Over 299 Miles of Driving] » TFTS – Technology, Gadgets & Curiosities

I'm not sure if the Chevy Volt is listed in the EV forum, but since the gas engine kicks into direct drive above 70mph, the Volt really belongs in the hybrid forum.

.

 

Did you notice how neither it nor the original source mentioned how many times it was plugged in? Not knowing that makes the 127 mpg value rather arbitrary.

Hearing about the potential is great, but only long-term tests will reflect the ownership experience. 299 miles isn't even a full week of driving for some of us. The ultimate test is heavy use of the heater & defroster in the dead of winter, which will have a big influence on both EV range and engine efficiency.
.

UPDATE: Turns out, the threshold in CS-mode is actually 30 mph.
.

 

I already posted the MT numbers in the second post of this thread. Including how many times it was plugged in.