BLOG POSTS

Back on January 27th, 2008, I wrote an article^[1] on the new (to America) Smart Car from the German company, Mercedes Benz. The post spurred a certain amount of comment, but no-one really attempted to answer the leading question behind the article: why does the Smart obtain a combined town/highway gas consumption of 60 mpg in Europe, but only 36 mpg in the U.S.A?

Over the last couple of months a few more comments on the subject have arrived, including one from ‘Shawn’, who attempted to do exactly that. I am reproducing it here simply because the post was written so long ago few readers would be likely to revisit it, and both Shawn’s comment, and others, are worthy of perusal:

“The answer is very easy and anyone following this car knows why.

First the car is peppier then any euro version. They knew if they went for the max econo version it would never fly in the USA due to the poor acceleration numbers. For the first year in the USA they must pick a trans/engine/looks combo that most can agree with. Americans don’t like diesel cars (for many wrong reasons) so bringing the high mileage diesel wouldn’t work either.

Even Americans looking for a small commuter car (they think) will not want a car that takes 20 sec to get to highway driving speeds.

As far as the top speed governor there are many technical theories why they would do that ranging from safety data or warranty theory. Only the importer (Penske) knows for sure.

Most early data coming in (even with the new USA EPA MPG ratings) are showing this car getting close to 40mpg on the highway. That is in line with the power, torque curve of this engine and the performance it delivers.

The first couple of years the Mini didn’t produce great numbers either getting 32mpg and now they have it up to 40mpg. Give it some time and it will improve. In the mean time they have the USA the engine they feel is the best combo of performance, drivability (reads noise, smoothness, ect) and fuel economy as goofy as you think that sounds.

I’m not defending it, only explaining why the MPG stinks. If MPG was the ONLY goal they they would have got the diesel that gets 70+mpg. Do some Google work and you find all studies show Americans have (and incorrect) view that diesel engines are still noisy, smelly and bad for the environment.”

Shawn’s comment is well thought-out, and I agree entirely with his opinion of American attitudes to diesel engines. Having owned two turbo-diesel cars in Britain, with superb performance and terrific gas mileage, I could never understand why Americans shunned them. Whether, in the long run, they will prove to be environmentally friendlier than petroleum is debatable, but short term the greater mpg has to be an asset.

There are some areas of the comment where I am less able to concur.

For instance: the US version actually seems less ‘peppier’ than its Euro counterpart. ConsumerGuide Automotive states that the “Passion”, has a 0-60 acceleration figure of 12.8 seconds (according to Smart). CGA’s road test showed the Passion to be struggling to reach that figure^[2]

“Smart pegs the ForTwo’s 0-60 mph acceleration at 12.8 seconds; that figure jibes with our test experience. Acceleration is sluggish from a stop and is plagued by annoying bogging and surging at every shift whether transmission is in manual or automatic mode. ForTwo’s small engine struggles to provide adequate highway passing power.”

Even if the US version manages to make 60mph in 12.8 seconds, that puts it only 0.5 secs faster than the UK version of the ForTwo Passion (the model tested by CGA)^[3].

Another commentator, ‘yev’ wrote:

“The reason the smart car gets worse mileage here in the US is because of the catalytic converters used here are inferior to the ones used in europe”

Now there’s a possibility, though to date I have found no way to verify the plausibility of that statement, and ‘yev’ offers no evidence to support his assertion.

One regular commentator to Sparrow Chat, ‘Jerry’, rightly asserted:

“I don’t know if it played a factor in this case, but it must be remembered that the American gallon is only 3.8 litres, while the Imperial gallon is 4.54l. Americans just get 20% lower mileage because of their smaller gallon.”

Jerry is, of course, quite right. The European gallon equals approximately 1.2 US gallons and does account for a percentage of the poorer mileage figure of the US Smart, though definitely not all.

For example, if we rate the UK car at 60mpg, and the US version at 40 (which is kind) the difference in gallon measurements only raises the latter figure to 48mpg.

Is the loss of 12 mpg due to poorer quality catalytic converters, as ‘yev’ suggests? Or is it due to abortive attempts at ‘pepping’ up the car for the US market, as ‘Shawn’ indicates?

I guess the jury is still out on this one. Would the next witness care to step forward?

^{[1] “Smart Car – But No Smart Gas Mileage” Sparrow Chat, 27th January, 2008″}

^{[2] “2008 Smart ForTwo Road Test”, CGA, 12th March, 2008.}

^{[3] “smart fortwo passion (71bhp)”, CarPages}

Filed under: U.S. not so Smart

From WTOL11, Toledo:^[1]

“WEST TOLEDO — She can’t walk. She can’t drive. She says she can’t even work. Now her only source of income has been taken away, and she can’t afford to live.

In desperate need of help, this west Toledo woman is turning to Call 11 for Action Problem Solver Mika Highsmith.

Janice Turner relies on wheels to get around. She explains, “I have fibromyalgia. I have a bulging disk.”

She only has one leg. “A guy I’d known for years pushed me out of truck and ran over me because I wouldn’t give him any money,” she says. The tragic incident changed her life forever. She hasn’t worked in the last seven years.

Turner was getting by on social security benefits, which were a little more than 600 dollars a month. But this past November, Turner got a letter saying it was her last check. And the reason? “They said because I wasn’t disabled,” she tells News 11.

Turner says she re-applied immediately, but has yet to get an answer. “I got a letter saying I’d hear something within 100 days. It’s been five months.”

Now this 52-year-old woman who has already lost so much is about to lose everything. “I’m four months behind on rent. My light bill is 400 dollars. They’re about to turn off my phone on the 16.”

Turner adds, “I want my social security. I want my life back — what’s left of it. It’s bad enough to be in pain, but to be in pain and be stressed out like this. I can’t handle it.”

Problem Solver Highsmith spoke with a rep from social security. She said you have to be re-certified every one, three or five years.

When it’s your turn you’ll get a letter in the mail. If you’re denied, you have ten days to file an appeal for payment continuation. After that, you have 60 days to make an appeal without pay.

In this case, the rep says she can’t give specifics due to privacy laws, but says she looking into the situation. “

It poses the question: how many legs do you need to lose before the SSA recognizes you’re disabled? Are they, perhaps, afraid Ms Turner may have grown a new one since she was last ‘certified’?

From KIDK3 in Idaho Falls:^[2]

“This is 45-year-old Susan Mattson. She’s worked for over 27 years at Basic American Foods in Shelly. Susan’s survived two aneurysms and several seizures.
But she may soon loose her home and a farm that’s been in the family for 137 years.

Susan Mattson: “The week of my brain aneurysm I had almost 100 thousand dollars saved and 55 thousand dollars worth of cattle. The cattle are gone and the savings is almost gone.”

Her medical conditions have cost her almost everything she has, not to mention her health.

She’s been turned down for Social Security disability three times now and has filed for a federal judge to hear her appeal. The one-time athlete has never taken advantage of the system. And she has one question.

Susan Mattson: “Why do I continue to be denied government disability? Why? I want someone to tell me why.”

One doctor has sent letters and medical records to the government on her behalf since 2006.

Dr. William Domarad: “I see her for an ongoing neurological condition for which she takes medicines every day.”

Susan also suffers from chronic rheumatoid arthritis and has had hip replacement surgery twice.
Dr. William Domarad: “I believe that she should qualify for disability. I believe that she’s disabled.”

Susan has survived having her right hip replaced twice, a broken back and a many other injuries.

She continues work full-time at the potato processing plant and looks forward to the day when she’ll get an answer to her question.

Social Security Officials would not comment on her case.”

Susan obviously has no chance of receiving disability benefit, after all she still has two legs.

Susan Mattson: “An average day for me is very very painful, depressing and most of all I hate my government.”

Susan, rest assured, the whole world hates your government.

<sup>[1] “Social security says one-legged woman isn’t disabled”, WTOL, April 2nd, 2008.

[2] “One Woman’s Fight”, KIDK3, April 4th, 2008.</sup>

Filed under: SSA broken

There’s a lot of hot air spouted, usually among politicians, about not mixing sport and politics. Much is said of the sportsmen and women losing out to political dog-fighting, particularly over such events as the Olympics.

Frankly, the hypocrisy is hard to stomach.

Can it truly not be argued that the IOC made a political decision when it decided to award the 2008 games to China? Whether or not that decision was made under political pressure will probably never been known for sure, but it’s a fair bet that it was. It’s also odds-on the pressure came from the United States, a country that owes China big, and the one likely to wield most influence over the International Olympic Committee.

Today, China sentenced a young man, Hu Jia, to three and a half years in jail. His charge was “inciting subversion of state power and the socialist system”. Hu Jia was, in fact, guilty of peacefully campaigning “for the environment, religious freedom and for the rights of people with HIV and Aids”.^[1] Two weeks ago, Yang Chunlin, another campaigner, was jailed on similar charges.

Most of us will be aware of the recent inhumane treatment meted out to Tibetans desperately trying to wrest their country from Chinese occupation over the last fifty years. It seems the Chinese dictatorial government has little respect for humanity, either in the East or the West, as it ruthlessly dispenses its malevolent punishments.

It is no longer a question of the separation of sport and politics. Some are suggesting world leaders should boycott the opening ceremony. How weak and spineless can one be? There is only one right course of action to be taken, by competitors and politicians alike. The games should be the subject of a concerted Western boycott.

Like the judgment to wage war in Iraq, the initial flawed decision by the IOC to choose Beijing cannot now be undone. As in Iraq, the only course of action is a withdrawal. It is time for competitors and politicians from around the globe, whose consciences one hopes are troubling them, to say enough is enough.

Leaving China with a massive failure would show that country how their human rights record is really viewed by the world. Individuals should consider carefully the effects of their attendance.

To suggest, as China and many western politicians have done, that politics and sport should not mix, is phony. Today, it would seem the Olympics is all about politics. The sport is only a sideline.

^{[1] ” Jail for Chinese rights activist”, BBC, April 3rd, 2008.}

Filed under: Olympic embarrassment