aguywhoplaysthief on 23/3/2006 at 06:23
Must have been one big sunroof.
I can't poke my head out of mine without stepping on the crotches of both front passengers.
Aerothorn on 24/3/2006 at 05:30
Quote Posted by Printer's Devil
Canada does have emissions standards, although I'm uncertain how stringent they are in comparison to California's. In some regions, car owners are forced to get an emissions test every two years to ensure compliance. IIRC, the
official reason the Smart Car is unavailable in the US is not emissions--it's projected sales figures. After a bit of market research, Daimler Chrysler felt that the appetite for Smart cars in the land of SUVs was too small to justify the expense of adapting it to American culture. Why we can buy it here is a bit of a mystery, if you consider the harsher climate and smaller population.
Seattle is in Washington:P
But yeah, it's not a matter of Canada not having any - it's just that they're different, so to get it over here you'd have to mess with it some. And yeah, I know that's why they didn't make them here (though Daimler Chrysler was obviously FUCKING WRONG - declining SUV sales + big wait-lists for hybrids seems like a good market for a smart car for me). But anyway, checked with my dad and he said he could never find proof they were availible in Canada- he could not find a single dealer site that sold them. Do you know of any (and if so, could you link to them)? That would be awesome:)
And yeah, I realize hybrids are not as cost-efficient (or is eco-friendly) as people think - simply more-so then normal cars (certainly more-so then SUVs). Also, the MPG on stuff like the Prius is greatly exagerated due to the EPA's broken standards - according to Consumer Reports, while the Prius claims to get 55 or so average, it really gets 35 - which is still one of the best out there, but not nearly as good as the claimed 55 or the Smart Car's 40-60 or whatever it is. Also, I believe Smart Cars, at least, are not hybrids - woo.
Printer's Devil on 28/3/2006 at 03:54
Many newer (U.S. market) Japanese and European models are being designed to meet/exceed California regulations from the get-go, to access a key market without the need for costly modifications. The Smart was originally conceived for the European market and the cleaner diesel formulas (less sulphur content) available there, so the North American fuel supply may have given the engineers headaches. The lifespan of catalytic converters (among other things) in diesel passenger vehicles is dramatically shortened by dirtier "truck" diesel. That's what I gather from the papers, anyway.
Here's the official Canadian Smart (
http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm?ID=4720) website.
aguywhoplaysthief on 28/3/2006 at 04:59
Quote Posted by Printer's Devil
The lifespan of catalytic converters (among other things) in diesel passenger vehicles is dramatically shortened by dirtier "truck" diesel.
They have catalytic converters on diesels now?
Crazy!
Tony on 28/3/2006 at 05:46
Quote Posted by Tocky
If I were king it would be perfectly safe to drive these on the freeway because it's all that would be allowed. A chance to make the oil companies and the mideast nutters appreciate the sale of thier product? Priceless. Maybe we could affford to power them with ethanol and cut them out entirely. What a lovely dream for the price of elbow room.
You get my vote. Then we can work on resurrecting the Messershmitt car and that funny thing made out of a 168 gallon P-38 drop tank!
Navyhacker006 on 28/3/2006 at 14:22
Tony, didn't you get the memo? We don't vote for kings.
Tocky on 29/3/2006 at 03:21
They say $3 this summer. Only one more buck to go before ethanol from prairie grass is profitable. Any bets it never reaches it? Not that I want the economic pinch it would cause but if we could drive these things and use organic diesel for trucks it would boost hell out of farming and be affordable to actually use for the typical family. Even lowering mileage from 330 mpg for extra kiddie room wouldn't be bad. The switchover would be hell but... I'm dreaming right? Everyone would drive thier bigfootSUVrockstompers on a DC crushing rampage. Then the oil companies would declare immanent domain on all farmland. Plus there is the nagging certainty that there isn't enough land in the world to support our consumption even at 330 mpg. Sigh. Organic diesel even smells like french fries.
Aerothorn on 29/3/2006 at 05:44
The problem with diesel is the same it's always been - particulate matter. It is cleaner, CO2/chemical wise in various ways - it's better for global warming - but it's simply rougher and spews out nastier exhaust. So if we all go over to diesal, we get better milage and less global warming, but then even MORE people get asthma.
Of course, I'm no fuel expert - does biodiesel not have this particulate problem?
Printer's Devil on 29/3/2006 at 13:21
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
...Of course, I'm no fuel expert - does biodiesel not have this particulate problem?
It depends on how "pure" it is. Biodiesel is sometimes mixed with petroleum diesel to prevent the oil from clogging up fuel lines or solidifying completely when the temperature starts dropping. It's a similar concept to the current practice of blending ethanol and gasoline--one component has less energy, but helps make the combustion cleaner.
Recently, there has been some success in making diesels even cleaner (besides removing sulphur at the refining stage) by injecting urea into the exhaust stream. The only real concern is logistical; the urea is obviously held in a separate tank, which the driver would have to manually refill. The vehicle would continue to run without it, but the emissions would increase. How do you reliably convince millions of people to go through the added cost and hassle of refilling
two tanks? Engineers are attempting to make the process more efficient so that refilling intervals are further apart (like an oil change), but that may not be possible, given the chemistry.
