Spark EV wins Car and Driver Electric Car Comparison Test!

[GeorgeChevy]

The March 2014 issue of Car and Driver has a comparison with 6 EVs-the Smart ED, Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus Electric, Fiat 500e, Honda Fit EV, and the Spark EV. Our beloved Spark EV won first place! There isn't an online article yet and I haven't seen any scans, I might scan it later if anyone is interested.

The article is kind of skewed against electric cars but it's interesting to see their opinion on them as they are more of an enthusiast magazine. The Spark EV had the 2nd longest range under their testing conditions, the 500e had the longest range.

Here were the rankings:
6th-Smart ED
5th-500e
4th-Leaf
3rd-Fit EV
2nd-Ford Focus Electric
1st-Spark EV

 

[nozferatu]

The March 2014 issue of Car and Driver has a comparison with 6 EVs-the Smart ED, Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus Electric, Fiat 500e, Honda Fit EV, and the Spark EV. Our beloved Spark EV won first place! There isn't an online article yet and I haven't seen any scans, I might scan it later if anyone is interested.

The article is kind of skewed against electric cars but it's interesting to see their opinion on them as they are more of an enthusiast magazine. The Spark EV had the 2nd longest range under their testing conditions, the 500e had the longest range.

Here were the rankings:
6th-Smart ED
5th-500e
4th-Leaf
3rd-Fit EV
2nd-Ford Focus Electric
1st-Spark EV

Yes please scan the article if it's easy for you to do.

Cheers

 

[gra]

The March 2014 issue of Car and Driver has a comparison with 6 EVs-the Smart ED, Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus Electric, Fiat 500e, Honda Fit EV, and the Spark EV. Our beloved Spark EV won first place! There isn't an online article yet and I haven't seen any scans, I might scan it later if anyone is interested.

The article is kind of skewed against electric cars but it's interesting to see their opinion on them as they are more of an enthusiast magazine. The Spark EV had the 2nd longest range under their testing conditions, the 500e had the longest range.

Here were the rankings:
6th-Smart ED
5th-500e
4th-Leaf
3rd-Fit EV
2nd-Ford Focus Electric
1st-Spark EV

Yes please scan the article if it's easy for you to do.

Cheers

That would be a violation of copyright, and besides it runs several pages. I posted a two-paragraph exceprt in another thread, so here that is again:

The article's first paragraph reads "The makers of the cars you see here were dragged kicking, screaming and, in some cases, litigating into eligibility for this test. If truth were ever told, then these automakers would undoubtedly say that they'd rather not be here at all, thank you very much; that all of their accumulated business acumen and experience rages against the absurdity of a $37,000 Ford Focus with a 64 mile driving range" [Note: C&D range achieved on test].

The section on the Spark starts:

"Here's a car that puts it all together. It's a total effort, a studied application of brain power and enthusiasm that embraces the electric mandate with gusto and without a whiff of the government-made-us reluctance. And this from none other than GM, the company that sued California over the EV mandate; that forever bears the mark of Cain for killing off its own pioneering electric, the EV1."

The article continues on in that vein, with the only real complaints being the one we all agree about, the slow On-Board Charger, and also the lack of in-dash nav other than by using a smartphone. Not bad for a company that "isn't serious about pure electric vehicles." Here's the way they ranked them, remembering that they put a higher weight on performance, handling and driving qualities than Joe/Josephine Commuter.

 

[nozferatu]

The March 2014 issue of Car and Driver has a comparison with 6 EVs-the Smart ED, Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus Electric, Fiat 500e, Honda Fit EV, and the Spark EV. Our beloved Spark EV won first place! There isn't an online article yet and I haven't seen any scans, I might scan it later if anyone is interested.

The article is kind of skewed against electric cars but it's interesting to see their opinion on them as they are more of an enthusiast magazine. The Spark EV had the 2nd longest range under their testing conditions, the 500e had the longest range.

Here were the rankings:
6th-Smart ED
5th-500e
4th-Leaf
3rd-Fit EV
2nd-Ford Focus Electric
1st-Spark EV

Yes please scan the article if it's easy for you to do.

Cheers

That would be a violation of copyright, and besides it runs several pages. I posted a two-paragraph exceprt in another thread, so here that is again:

The article's first paragraph reads "The makers of the cars you see here were dragged kicking, screaming and, in some cases, litigating into eligibility for this test. If truth were ever told, then these automakers would undoubtedly say that they'd rather not be here at all, thank you very much; that all of their accumulated business acumen and experience rages against the absurdity of a $37,000 Ford Focus with a 64 mile driving range" [Note: C&D range achieved on test].

The section on the Spark starts:

"Here's a car that puts it all together. It's a total effort, a studied application of brain power and enthusiasm that embraces the electric mandate with gusto and without a whiff of the government-made-us reluctance. And this from none other than GM, the company that sued California over the EV mandate; that forever bears the mark of Cain for killing off its own pioneering electric, the EV1."

The article continues on in that vein, with the only real complaints being the one we all agree about, the slow On-Board Charger, and also the lack of in-dash nav other than by using a smartphone. Not bad for a company that "isn't serious about pure electric vehicles." Here's the way they ranked them, remembering that they put a higher weight on performance, handling and driving qualities than Joe/Josephine Commuter.

Let him worry about that...

 

[cwerdna]

I received the C&D issue. Although I'm not sure how I'd rank the vehicles, I recall they missed many points.

IIRC, they didn't touch on DC FC at all. Out of the vehicles they tested, only the Leaf and Spark EV have any DC FC capability. It seems like they didn't use it at all nor discuss it at all. And, we know how widespread CHAdeMO is vs. J1772 CCS.

They should've dinged the Spark EV more for its slow OBC and J1772 CCS. But, as C&D is a more performance-oriented publication, I can see why they ranked the vehicles how they did. They also should've dinged the Focus EV more for its TINY trunk.

It's a little odd that they left out the Rav4 EV since they included CA compliance cars like the Spark EV, Fit EV, Fiat 500e and very limited availability Smart ED (~9 states, IIRC). In effect, they reviewed 4 cars that are unavailable to most of the US.

I also recall they gave no info about what their range test consisted of nor test protocol (i.e. how low did they drive it? until the car stopped? Did they add numbers from the GOMs (guess-o-meters) to driven distance?) I suspect it was a lot of high speed driving and the cold that sapped the range of their test vehicles (esp. the Fit EV). I'm surprised Fit EV did the worst in their range test, at 52 miles. In their test, the Spark EV achieved 66 miles, Focus EV 64 and Leaf 64.

FWIW, in the test at http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/testing-electric-vehicles-in-the-real-world.html, the '13 Fit EV beat out their '11 (battery degraded) Leaf, and '12 Focus EV.

One of the plusses they said for the Spark EV was "everything is well thought out". Obviously, that contradicts what iletric and a few others have thought... (However, some of iletric's gripes are just typical differences between Japanese cars that he's used to vs. non-Japanese cars. Someone used to GM cars could say the Japanese cars are "wrong".)

 

[nozferatu]

I received the C&D issue. Although I'm not sure how I'd rank the vehicles, I recall they missed many points.

IIRC, they didn't touch on DC FC at all. Out of the vehicles they tested, only the Leaf and Spark EV have any DC FC capability. It seems like they didn't use it at all nor discuss it at all. And, we know how widespread CHAdeMO is vs. J1772 CCS.

They should've dinged the Spark EV more for its slow OBC and J1772 CCS. But, as C&D is a more performance-oriented publication, I can see why they ranked the vehicles how they did. They also should've dinged the Focus EV more for its TINY trunk.

It's a little odd that they left out the Rav4 EV since they included CA compliance cars like the Spark EV, Fit EV, Fiat 500e and very limited availability Smart ED (~9 states, IIRC). In effect, they reviewed 4 cars that are unavailable to most of the US.

I also recall they gave no info about what their range test consisted of nor test protocol (i.e. how low did they drive it? until the car stopped? Did they add numbers from the GOMs (guess-o-meters) to driven distance?) I suspect it was a lot of high speed driving and the cold that sapped the range of their test vehicles (esp. the Fit EV). I'm surprised Fit EV did the worst in their range test, at 52 miles. In their test, the Spark EV achieved 66 miles, Focus EV 64 and Leaf 64.

FWIW, in the test at http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/testing-electric-vehicles-in-the-real-world.html, the '13 Fit EV beat out their '11 (battery degraded) Leaf, and '12 Focus EV.

One of the plusses they said for the Spark EV was "everything is well thought out". Obviously, that contradicts what iletric and a few others have thought... (However, some of iletric's gripes are just typical differences between Japanese cars that he's used to vs. non-Japanese cars. Someone used to GM cars could say the Japanese cars are "wrong".)

Maybe the RAV4 was left out because it's more of an SUV than a standard car? Don't know. I've never been particularly fond of C&D's lame journalism.

I frankly would avoid the Fit EV in general...it has abysmal crash ratings particularly in offset head on impacts...it's a rolling coffin if that's important to some.

 

[cwerdna]

Maybe the RAV4 was left out because it's more of an SUV than a standard car? Don't know. I've never been particularly fond of C&D's lame journalism.

I frankly would avoid the Fit EV in general...it has abysmal crash ratings particularly in offset head on impacts...it's a rolling coffin if that's important to some.

Dunno on the 1st point. But yeah, perhaps it's because it's not a "passenger car" but rather a "light truck" (by govt classifications).

As for Fit EV, I'm unaware of an offset crash tests on nor on the Spark EV.

However, the ICE Fit seems to do better than the ICE Spark on the moderate overlap (offset) crash test. This is the one IIHS has been running for ages before they decided to move the goal posts and add a small overlap test (on which MANY vehicles now do poorly).
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/fit
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/spark

 

[nozferatu]

Maybe the RAV4 was left out because it's more of an SUV than a standard car? Don't know. I've never been particularly fond of C&D's lame journalism.

I frankly would avoid the Fit EV in general...it has abysmal crash ratings particularly in offset head on impacts...it's a rolling coffin if that's important to some.

Dunno on the 1st point. But yeah, perhaps it's because it's not a "passenger car" but rather a "light truck" (by govt classifications).

As for Fit EV, I'm unaware of an offset crash tests on nor on the Spark EV.

However, the ICE Fit seems to do better than the ICE Spark on the moderate overlap (offset) crash test. This is the one IIHS has been running for ages before they decided to move the goal posts and add a small overlap test (on which MANY vehicles now do poorly).
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/fit
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/spark

Actually from the above links, the Spark gets an "A" for acceptable and the Fit gets a "P" for poor on offset.

The reason is clear after you watch the videos below: The Honda Fit's driver's head completely misses the airbag due to the fact that the steering wheel moves so far right of the driver that there is nothing to hit.

The issue is the buckling of the door pillar. And the wheel gets cleanly ripped off! But the interior seems intact.

Honda FIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agCCJQIPLD0

Spark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAPzkM3NR9E

Thrown in for measure...the Fiat 500.

Fiat 500: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Df9HsixvBs

All are a bit horrifying lol

 

[cwerdna]

I frankly would avoid the Fit EV in general...it has abysmal crash ratings particularly in offset head on impacts...it's a rolling coffin if that's important to some.

As for Fit EV, I'm unaware of an offset crash tests on nor on the Spark EV.

However, the ICE Fit seems to do better than the ICE Spark on the moderate overlap (offset) crash test. This is the one IIHS has been running for ages before they decided to move the goal posts and add a small overlap test (on which MANY vehicles now do poorly).
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/fit
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/spark

Actually from the above links, the Spark gets an "A" for acceptable and the Fit gets a "P" for poor on offset.

No. You're either ignoring what I said or interpreting it wrong. Both cars good "G" for "Moderate overlap front" which IS an offset crash test. IIHS has been running this for YEARS. But, the Fit seemed to actually do a bit better w/"G" all across in that category vs. all G's except for a A for (Acceptable) for head/neck injury.

The small overlap test (per http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests) was only introduced in 2012 and is my "moving the goalposts" reference is another offset test. That's where the Spark does better.

 

[nozferatu]

No. You're either ignoring what I said or interpreting it wrong. Both cars good "G" for "Moderate overlap front" which IS an offset crash test. IIHS has been running this for YEARS. But, the Fit seemed to actually do a bit better w/"G" all across in that category vs. all G's except for a A for (Acceptable) for head/neck injury.

The small overlap test (per http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests) was only introduced in 2012 and is my "moving the goalposts" reference is another offset test. That's where the Spark does better.

You're simply not understanding how to view results. You look at the biggest differences...not the scores that are the same. The small overlap test is the toughest test for most cars....along with side impact. So when you compare the two in these two test, which does better? If the rest are the same, then which is better overall?

 

[cwerdna]

You're simply not understanding how to view results. You look at the biggest differences...not the scores that are the same. The small overlap test is the toughest test for most cars....along with side impact. So when you compare the two in these two test, which does better? If the rest are the same, then which is better overall?

Here we go again. IIHS runs TWO different offset crash tests. Small overlap only started recently.

Actually from the above links, the Spark gets an "A" for acceptable and the Fit gets a "P" for poor on offset.

Nope. ICE Spark gets "A" for acceptable on small overlap front. ICE Fit gets "P" for poor overlap front.

I frankly would avoid the Fit EV in general...it has abysmal crash ratings particularly in offset head on impacts...it's a rolling coffin if that's important to some.

The ICE Fit gets a Good moderate overlap front, as does the ICE Spark. If you look at the details, the ICE Fit does slightly better than the ICE Spark in moderate overlap front.

But yes, if you want to look across the board, the ICE Spark does better overall because it doesn't get a poor on small overlap front.

But, this is not related to the C&D comparison as I see no mention of any crash test results nor is that one of their categories when they scored the vehicles.

 

[nozferatu]

Here we go again. IIHS runs TWO different offset crash tests. Small overlap only started recently.

WHO CARES if it started recently or not....the fact of the matter is which performs better? What's with you and making excuses?

Nope. ICE Spark gets "A" for acceptable on small overlap front. ICE Fit gets "P" for poor overlap front.

That's what I said...why are you constantly correcting something not needing to be corrected? What do you think I was talking about?

The ICE Fit gets a Good moderate overlap front, as does the ICE Spark. If you look at the details, the ICE Fit does slightly better than the ICE Spark in moderate overlap front.

But yes, if you want to look across the board, the ICE Spark does better overall because it doesn't get a poor on small overlap front.

Well small overlap front is perhaps the toughest test in terms of structural integrity and weakness. It's the test automakers dread because it highlights the weaknesses in their designs.

But, this is not related to the C&D comparison as I see no mention of any crash test results nor is that one of their categories when they scored the vehicles.

I don't really care what C&D says...that's not the issue I am discussing here.

 

[cwerdna]

Here we go again. IIHS runs TWO different offset crash tests. Small overlap only started recently.

WHO CARES if it started recently or not....the fact of the matter is which performs better? What's with you and making excuses?

It matters. Prior to any cars being run on the new small overlap crash tests, the only offset crash tests run by a US body were the IIHS offset crash test, now renamed to "moderate overlap front"

I'm only more aware of this because it seems the IIHS has been moving the goalposts and going out of their way to say that Toyotas failed their new tests (e.g. http://priuschat.com/threads/iis-and-a-preliminary-report.130908/).

All automakers optimize for known existing crash tests. When you move the goal posts, it may not do well on the new test, esp. if it's a model that hasn't been optimized for this not-designed-for test.

Nope. ICE Spark gets "A" for acceptable on small overlap front. ICE Fit gets "P" for poor overlap front.

That's what I said...why are you constantly correcting something not needing to be corrected? What do you think I was talking about?

No, you said

I frankly would avoid the Fit EV in general...it has abysmal crash ratings particularly in offset head on impacts...it's a rolling coffin if that's important to some.

Actually from the above links, the Spark gets an "A" for acceptable and the Fit gets a "P" for poor on offset.

Nowhere on http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/spark nor http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/fit is the word offset present, let alone letters A nor P next to offset.

Well small overlap front is perhaps the toughest test in terms of structural integrity and weakness. It's the test automakers dread because it highlights the weaknesses in their designs.

Yes, it highlights weaknesses as the kinetic energy of the car needs to be dissipated over a much smaller area than the moderate overlap test or a NHTSA's frontal crash test where the entire width of the car is available.

AND, yes, as an automaker, I'd "dread" it if I hadn't optimized for this test because it didn't exist when I designed my car.

I don't really care what C&D says...that's not the issue I am discussing here.

See thread title.

 

[nozferatu]

It matters. Prior to any cars being run on the new small overlap crash tests, the only offset crash tests run by a US body were the IIHS offset crash test, now renamed to "moderate overlap front"

I'm only more aware of this because it seems the IIHS has been moving the goalposts and going out of their way to say that Toyotas failed their new tests (e.g. http://priuschat.com/threads/iis-and-a-preliminary-report.130908/).

All automakers optimize for known existing crash tests. When you move the goal posts, it may not do well on the new test, esp. if it's a model that hasn't been optimized for this not-designed-for test.

Sigh...you just don't get it do you. The fact that the Spark outperforms the Fit in a "moved goal post" test speaks better for the Spark. There's a reason why the new test is introduced..because it better simulates a realworld accident. So I don't know about you but I'd rather be in a car that performs better regardless. So stop making excuses.

Nowhere on http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/spark nor http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/fit is the word offset present, let alone letters A nor P next to offset.

That's because offset to me is the overlap test. Do you understand? You do take things too literally don't you. You need to relax and let go a little.

Yes, it highlights weaknesses as the kinetic energy of the car needs to be dissipated over a much smaller area than the moderate overlap test or a NHTSA's frontal crash test where the entire width of the car is available.

AND, yes, as an automaker, I'd "dread" it if I hadn't optimized for this test because it didn't exist when I designed my car.

Yes and the car that scores better in that test is the Spark. Case closed.

 

[GeorgeChevy]

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...v-nissan-leaf-smart-fortwo-ed-comparison-test

 

[nozferatu]

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...v-nissan-leaf-smart-fortwo-ed-comparison-test

As predicted, the Spark's mid-range acceleration is quite good. As are most EV's. But it doesn't act like a 400ft-lb vehicle off the line that's for sure. Shame...there's no point having that amount of torque if you're not allowed to try and use it.

The Fiat's quicker acceleration off the line to about 40 demonstrates this. Needless to say, I was quite interested in how the Spark EV would perform against much more powerful cars...say against a BMW 435i rolling down the street at 25-30 MPH. I would suspect unless the 435i driver downshifts to 2nd, it'd be a pretty close run up. Definitely catch those types of drivers off-guard that's for sure!

 

[cwerdna]

Sigh...you just don't get it do you. The fact that the Spark outperforms the Fit in a "moved goal post" test speaks better for the Spark. There's a reason why the new test is introduced..because it better simulates a realworld accident

Source?

For example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3242554/ says

The results are that full engagement and offset (offset category means the direct damage overlaps the vehicle frame rail, with the center of direct damage between the frame rails) were the most frequent crashes contributing 35% each. The frequency of the small overlap frontal was 6%. The risks of injury (AIS ≥ 2) for the full engagement, offset, and small overlap were 8%, 6%, and 3% respectively.

Nowhere on http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/spark nor http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/fit is the word offset present, let alone letters A nor P next to offset.

That's because offset to me is the overlap test. Do you understand? You do take things too literally don't you. You need to relax and let go a little.

You keep mixing up words and making inaccurate statements. Again, there are two overlap/offset tests. See http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests.

IIHS conducts two different frontal crash tests: a moderate overlap test (formerly known as the frontal offset test) and a small overlap test...

 

[nozferatu]

Source?

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings
http://jalopnik.com/2014-toyota-corolla-gets-low-score-on-americas-toughes-1440645310

The IIHS small overlap test is the most difficult test to pass and cars passing this test earn the TSP+ award. Pure and simple.

By virtue of the fact that most cars having decent ratings prior to this test are now downgraded considerably due to this new test demonstrates it's the toughest test to pass.

You keep mixing up words and making inaccurate statements. Again, there are two overlap/offset tests. See http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests.

I'm afraid I'm not...it's very simple...you are the one making things extremely complicated by being so anal and uptight. Both are OFFSET tests.

It's very very simple...the small overlap test is an offset test....15% less offset than the usual frontal offset test. You can define it how you like...much like your ridiculous "Frankenplug" nomenclature. Perhaps now you get a glimpse of the frustrations people go through trying to follow you and TW with the ludicrous terminology you use for various things...lol

IIHS conducts two different frontal crash tests: a moderate overlap test (formerly known as the frontal offset test) and a small overlap test...

Yes...and the small overlap test IS STILL an offset test.