Print

[richgilb]

Hi all,

I hope to get a forfour in the next few weeks. I note the 1.5 petrol passion auto model is listed officially as being more efficient than the pulse and also the auto box is listed as more efficient than the manual. I have two questions about this. Is the passion more efficient because the wheels are perhaps more narrow? In the real world is the auto box actually less efficient than the manual? I hear it may not change in the right place as well as one would hope and I wonder if actually it may be worse than the manual? Something that may have slipped through when being tested.

Cheers
Rich

[CrazyG]

Right....how anyone can say the Passion is more efficient/frugal than a
Pulse is beyond me...it must have been from a journalist who didn't
know is 'face from his ar@e'...unless the Pulse in question was spec'd
up at time of ordering from new with every extra that was available !

You see, the Pulse has a 'solid' plastic roof that is lighter than the glass
one that is fitted as standard to a Passion. Plus the Passion even in it's
lowest spec (with heavier alloy wheels) has far more goodies or 'bits n
pieces' fitted to it than a basic Pulse which came with steel wheels.
The tyre sizes were more of less the same. So....the Pulse is actually
more efficient.
The AMT gearbox (Automated Manual Transmission) has 6 speeds and
thus returns better mileage...obviously. It also 'learns' (to a degree)
how you drive, but it also depends how you drive it. Yes there is a big
step between 1st n 2nd, but once again depending how you drive will
also depend on if you get a jerky drive when going down the gears
from 2nd to 1st.  I change gears manually in my AMT ....and I get
it to change at different points to what the 'electronics' would tell it
if I left it in the auto mode.  It is all relative.
The only weak point of the AMT is the actuator and electronics.
I myself and many others have never had any problems....except
the odd 'O' appearing on an odd occasion. Others have not faired
so well and have a 'Friday' gearbox...with problems. Overall I would
say you hear more about AMT problems cos peops speak up then,
but say nothing when it works ok. Comprendo.

If you want the best economy, go for a diesel, if on the other hand
you intend doing a mix of driving then stick to the petrol. As for
power choice...the 1.3 is as powerful as the 1.5 but better on fuel.
It you intend carrying heavy loads in mixed driving, go for the 1.5
petrol.  There are so many things to consider......
And there are so many different spec'd/equipped models to choose
from, so the choice is down to you.

[richgilb]

Thanks for the insight. So I need to get to the bottom of the figures quoted that seem to be official. 48.7mpg quoted for the pulse here:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201306157303347/sort/default/usedcars/engine-size-cars/1-4l_to_1-6l/fuel-type/petrol/transmission/automatic/model/forfour/make/smart/onesearchad/used/onesearchad/nearlynew/onesearchad/new/radius/1500/page/1/postcode/hu53dr?logcode=p

And 53.5mpg for the passion here, which is a big difference:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201307017582148/sort/default/usedcars/engine-size-cars/1-4l_to_1-6l/fuel-type/petrol/transmission/automatic/model/forfour/make/smart/onesearchad/used/onesearchad/nearlynew/onesearchad/new/radius/1500/page/1/postcode/hu53dr?logcode=p

I think Parkers quote similar.

Diesel is out for me as I am on my fifth lpg car and will be converting my forfour.

Your gearbox thoughts make total sense, 6 gears is a lot, I didn't realise. Is sixth higher than the manual fifth? I do a lot of motorway miles, 25,000 a year. Might the 1.3 not be a bit buzzy for this kind of work?

Are there any smart documents with specs anywhere so I can see if the mpg is getting misquoted?

[mr singh]

why do you want to fit LPG?

its going to work out cheaper to buy a diesel and run it, plus it will never run right once converted

[Brabs]

IMHO the most efficient 1.5 is in fact the BRILLIANT little 1.1! 
 

[Alex]

Get the 1.5 and LPG it, and stick to the narrowest wheels you still like. If you stay in 175/65R14 you will have a smooth ride and good fuel economy. If you go for 195/50R15 or 205/45R16 the ride will get choppier and fuel economy will decline.

I've gone from 175/65R15 to 205/40R17 and 225/35R17 on the rear and this + brabus rear spoiler has increased my average fuel consumption by around 10%, and at speed it's worse, it's 20% extra.

I am an LPG fan, there are EXCELLENT systems out there, you just need a good place to install and program it properly. The forfour engine is quite complex and very well tuned, so don't skimp on the LPG system, put a good sequential one.

The 6th gear on the auto is longer than the manual's 5th, and you drop about 500 revs at motorway cruising speeds. If you don't like where the AMT shifts in the rev range you can always shift manually using the gear lever or flappy paddles.

The 1.3 is very good, but with LPG it's better to have a power reserve than to work the engine hard all the time. Plus the longer stroke of the 1.5 is better suited for LPG.

[richgilb]

Mr. Singh, no need for the diesel is better than lpg debate. This will be my sixth conversion. My situation is not straightforward, as my employer does not differentiate between lpg and petrol for expenses. The employer does differentiate between diesel and petrol and the difference is significant.

I am interested in your comments that it might not run right though. If you know something about this particular engine that makes it not run right, I would be like to know. I have had 5 conversions done on a Vectra, X Trail (twice), e46 BMW (twice). I had a problem on one conversion with valve wear on one of the X Trails but this was due to me running the flashlube oil out. Other than that they all ran very smoothly. No different to petrol.

Alex, about sourcing the narrowest wheels possible, well this would be convenient if the car came with them. So which model has them? Or are all wheels the same width and you just put a more narrow tyre than manufacturer recommendation? Do the passion and pulse both have 14" wheels?

And any insight into the mpg quoted differences between the pulse and passion or an original smart document with figures would be most appreciated.

[Unknown]

The Pulse & Pure spec's are the most economical for three reasons: weight, no air con and skinny 14in or 15in steels (depending on engine). The AMT hammers the manual on economy due to the gearing and the overdrive on fifth giving it six gears. The AMT will only give you peak returns in manual mode.

The most cost efficient model produced by smart was the 68bhp CDi Pure (Pulse if you wanted better spec), this was the cheapest model to tax and run.

Anyhoos, I can understand your wish to convert to LPG; for people who thinks it is for mpg, you're wrong, its cost. LPG (on average) costs 50% less than petrol and if you do the miles the difference of conversion will be paid off swiftly and you'll start seeing your fuel costs drop.

I personally would choose a 1.3 AMT, the engine is good and returns a hearty 55mpg on average. I know you will see a slight difference running LPG but your mpg should be just as good.

Have you had a quote on the LPG conversion?

[mr singh]

i don't know about the forfour engine but i have had experienced with LPG conversion or gash conversions as i call them, on Jaguar engines.

all the cars that were converted were high mileage or had over 100,000 miles
we had a customer when i worked at Jaguar Leeds who had his 2003 4.2 V8 supercharged XJR converted to LPG and the engine management light was on and was running rough. plugged our diagnostic kit in and no codes logged, and it was the same with several other cars.
another customer who had no problems with his 2.0 V6 X-type running on petrol or gas BUT it has difficulty switching from fuel to fuel.
another customer who had problems running on gas but it ran normally on petrol.
the dealer i work at now, Jaguar York have had cooling issues and head gaskets fail on the V6 engines and they are a solid engine and iv never known one to have failed head gaskets.
the pipe that supplies the fuel from the injector to the engine was superglue'd to the pipe going in to the inlet manifold.
iv seen tanks insecurely fitted. one had been fitted using expanding foam.

when i worked at Jaguar Leeds, we calculated how long it would take to recoup the costs of converting a 2.0 V6 X-Type to LPG and it came to 300,000 miles ON TOP of what the car already had to begin with. we factored in the cost of buying the car, the cost of fitting the conversion, the cost of maintaining the LPG fuel system, the cost of fuel (and the lack of garages selling it), the cost of diagnostics when things go wrong. there was another question that arose, has the fuel tank been crash tested?

I'm not a fan of LPG conversions. id much rather have a diesel than convert a petrol, id live with less expenses than live with the head ache of having the car in a garage more times than with you.

[richgilb]

The Pulse & Pure spec's are the most economical for three reasons: weight, no air con and skinny 14in or 15in steels (depending on engine). The AMT hammers the manual on economy due to the gearing and the overdrive on fifth giving it six gears. The AMT will only give you peak returns in manual mode.

The most cost efficient model produced by smart was the 68bhp CDi Pure (Pulse if you wanted better spec), this was the cheapest model to tax and run.

Anyhoos, I can understand your wish to convert to LPG; for people who thinks it is for mpg, you're wrong, its cost. LPG (on average) costs 50% less than petrol and if you do the miles the difference of conversion will be paid off swiftly and you'll start seeing your fuel costs drop.

I personally would choose a 1.3 AMT, the engine is good and returns a hearty 55mpg on average. I know you will see a slight difference running LPG but your mpg should be just as good.

Have you had a quote on the LPG conversion?

It works out about £200 per cylinder plus £100 for flashlube where I have been for the last four conversions.

So the autotrader mpg  figures are wrong then? I am a bit twitchy about 1.3 at 70/80 mph. What do you think?

I really can do with the lowest spec so steel wheels and no ac is fine. I have one car for work that I keep for three years. It does 75 to 100k in that time. I have a convertible BMW for social and domestic use.

[richgilb]

I have been advised on a few occasions to avoid converting Jags, particularly the X-type. I also would avoid converting supercharged or turbocharged cars.

[richgilb]

Very frustrating these figures....can't get the full picture anywhere. This one claims the 1.5 is marginally more efficient but does not quote auto. The PDF on this site quotes l/100km.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/smart/forfour-2004/?section=data

[mr singh]

its up to you. iv put my opinions out there.

like i said im not a fan of LPG. i currently do a daily 50 mile round trip to get to work and back and my 1.1 returns low to mid 40 MPG with my lead foot. i would say buy it and run it for a month and see what you think MPG wise and convert iv required.

surely it would be better if you're claiming the fuel back to not convert and hand in your fuel receipts as you'd get more money?

id trust Parkers with their figures but not their reviews as they quoted that the 3.0 V6 F-type was not supercharged but ALL of the engines are supercharged

[richgilb]

.....surely it would be better if your claiming the fuel back to not convert and hand in your fuel receipts as you'd get more money?......

No...I am paid a fixed amount per mile.

[mozilla]

Is the 1.3 a 3 cylinder? might be cheaper to convert