SMART CAR - yea or nay?

[Core Shot]

Finally saw one in person.
They are cute, but not safety inspiring.


heres a 70mph crash, though


I actually fit in the thing with headroom to spare.
No hood, so not much crumple zone

havent driven one yet.
Could be fun as an attention getting billboard for the biz, but it seems there are higher mpg options.

[Buzzworthy]

Seen one in SLC, took a triple take. Holy tiny. Like out of a movie.


edit: the cage is a great idea, but man it is small and that is going to kill regardless of the car. What a hard hit. Earnhardt died with some good force at Daytona. Wonder what the force was in that and this crash.

[DropCliffsNotBombs]

I heard that those things (maybe not that exact model) did better in head-on crash than a Range Rover Discovery!!
Who woulda' thunk it?

[The Dad]

Nay.

You can get many other cars with similar mileage at a similar price point that are far more practical (e.g., room for four). The only possible benefit would be if you could head-in park in a parallel spot, but that's illegal everywhere I know of.

[XXX-er]

well in a big city they make alot of sense ,I seen them park easily tail to the curb without taking up too much room in europe ,wished I was driving one in engand where the roads were really narrow

[Hugh Conway]

You can get many other cars with similar mileage at a similar price point that are far more practical (e.g., room for four).

Why do you need room for four if you never drive with 4 people in the car?

[DoWork]

As minimalist, economic form of travel, i say it's a great concept. In terms of fun or sexiness, I give it a "meh"...

I mean where do you put your shit??? Skis? Gear??? I may have a solution...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3h8KdtuBBLM

Fricken' amazing if you ask me. And there's a monster truck version out there too, I'm just lazy and dont feel like posting it. Youtube it if you care.

And with the passenger seat gone, a nice rack (that's right, tits!) would drastically increase cargo over the block (that would get 'busa mileage, almost)... Now imagine if this motor was turbo!!! There's 550hp turbo busas out there... Need I mention crapping on the soul of a dude in a ferrari with a car that looks like a goddam roller skate? Now THAT is awesome.

[Wandrin*]

I am on the fence, too. I had a deposit on one and then pulled it back.

I vacillate between a Smart, a Fit or Yaris, etc., a motorcycle or a scooter. Yep, all over the map. The problem is I don't have a dead or dieing car right now so I really have no need to replace a car but I would like to get some better gas mileage over our twin Subie Outbacks.

I am pretty comfortable with the crash ratings / safety of the Smart, but I agree it should get much better mileage. I would like to see the all-electric version make a debut.

[Pow4Brains]

After driving a Cj-5 for many years I gotta believe you'd piss blood after a 1/2 hour or so of riding in that thing. But for city zippin' it might a good choice.

[awf170]

How does a car so small and with so little power get such shitty gas mileage?

Smartcar 33/41 (EPA 2008)
'95 Honda Civic 35/41 (Estimated EPA 2008)

[f2f]

from wikipedia:

Engine and fuel economy

The engine range featured turbocharged three cylinder motors. Originally, the base petrol engine had 599 cc, but displacement increased to 698 cc with an early restyling. It was available in 37 kW (50 hp) or 45 kW (61 hp) variants. The turbodiesel engine has 799 cc displacement with 30 kW (40 hp). Engines are mounted in the rear of the vehicle. The new 999 cc version (2007 onwards) comprises normally aspirated (NA) and turbo versions. The turbocharged 999 cc engine has 11.4:1 compression ratio and premium fuel (95+ RON) is recommended. It is rated at 71 hp (53 kW) and is also the only engine currently offered in the US. The US NA 999 cc engine has a 10:1 compression ratio and premium fuel (91 Octane) is recommended. German tuner company Brabus, in a joint venture with Smart, has developed a version with 72 kW (98 hp) and 140 N·m torque, available in Europe only at this time.

EEC testing rates the 999 cc Smart at 4.7 L/100 km (60 mpg imp/50 mpg US) for the gasoline model and 3.4 L/100 km (83 mpg imp/69 mpg US) for the diesel. The EPA rates the vehicle at 36 mpg (US) (6.5 L/100 km/43 mpg imp) combined.

[El Chupacabra]

How does a car so small and with so little power get such shitty gas mileage?

Smartcar 33/41 (EPA 2008)
'95 Honda Civic 35/41 (Estimated EPA 2008)

Exactly the problem with them.

Also, when you can buy a larger car with more creature comforts (more space = more safety too), with similar or better mileage, at lower cost, then the only reason to buy a Smart car is for novelty.

Aren't the Toyota Yaris, Scion xD, and some of the small Kia/Hyundai cars less expensive? and with similar MPG?

[StormRider]

I drove one of these little buggers around Italy for 2 weeks in 2006. It was quite comfortable and was plenty roomy - with luggage. I felt perfectly safe, but then again they all drive small cars in Italy. It’s a little gutless on steep hills, but that may have been partly due to the transmission. I don’t know if the new model has a new one or not. It felt OK at freeway speeds so long as you’re not in a rush.
As an around town daily driver, I think it would be great. It’s on my wife’s very short list to replace her ’97 Outback. If you have a long, freeway commute, look elsewhere.

[cinnepa]

i'd think it would be the perfect city/subarb car......on the highway though i'd be scared shitless.

[mrw]

It would make a decent city car with the turbo diesel and a manual trans.
IMO, the problem is insurance. I possess one ass but at one time owned 2 cars. Even with the multi-car discount, the premium was ridiculous so any possible $$ fuel saving is then just given to an insurance company. It's practical if you never leave your urban environment. I can't imagine trying to get one of those things loaded with ski gear up a mountain.

[lemon boy]

Buying a second car, especially a new one is almost always an exercise in economic retardation. You might (might!) be able to make a used scooter pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time.

But yeah, smart cars have really disappointing mpg #s.

[EPSkis]

"According to Smart, the 61-hp engine can go from zero to 60 mph in about 15 seconds."

34mpg in a 2seat deathbox (4star driver / 3star pass / driver's side "safety concern" and a 3star rollover rating - OUCH.)

VS

28+mpg in a 5pass, functional AWD vehicle?

Keep your Subies, bro.

edit: I forgot to mention 5stars all around & 4star rollover for your Subies.

[philippeR]

Nay.
I drove one once and hated it. No really better mileage than a real car (ie that can sits 4), gear box sucks beyond hope, expensive. If you need a 2 seats commuter, buy a scooter.

[SkierX720]

So my boy bought one as a promo car for his local business and it's worked out well for him. He was among one of the first in the country a couple years back to pick one up and it's hilarious.

I laugh so hard everytime both of us 200lbs+ fellas are rolling around in "tha smart"

Safety has to be a huge concern but if look around to what some people have done to this things, its impressive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4Hd...eature=related

Doesn't really go along the lines with being economical but a hiyabusa's milage still surpasses most all automobiles.

[counterfeitfake]

How does a car so small and with so little power get such shitty gas mileage?

Smartcar 33/41 (EPA 2008)
'95 Honda Civic 35/41 (Estimated EPA 2008)

This is a really excellent question. It looks to me like the engine just sucks- the 1-liter turbo takes 95 octane fuel and puts out 71 hp. Seems like a raw deal when you consider how many NA 1-liter bike motors put out twice that. I guess I'd like to see a dyno graph.

[powder4breakfast]

When I was studying design in Swtzerland, I had the opportunity to sit down in a casual meeting with Michele Sofisti, former president of Swatch Corporation (Swatch, Tiffany & Co, Omega, Tissot, etc). He explained that the Smart car was created with the same concept as the Swatch watch: well built, inexpensive and very design oriented.

The Swiss designed car was originally a partnership with Swatch and Mercedes. Swatch came up with the design and concept. Mercedes would build and provide the motor. Thus creating a car that was, in true Swatch form, well built with great design aesthetics and priced low.

However, near the end, Mercedes and Swatch could not come to terms on price. Swatch had always intended the car to be very reasonably priced. Mercedes decided that they could not allow the low price. Swatch has a strong reputation and mission statement that did not coincide with the higher priced vehicle. Swatch, in essence, washed their hands of the deal. Even though they had invested so much money and time into the design and concept, they did not want their name associated with the higher priced vehicle.

Had the Smart car gone into production with Swatch still involved and priced appropriately, it would be a great car priced right for what you get. As it is priced now, I guess you have more to consider and compare when deciding whether or not you want one.

In any case, it's pretty cool that the car was designed by a watch company.

[Jax]

I just bought a Honda Fit less than two weeks ago. I freaking LOVE it!! I can't believe it, but it's true. It doesn't have the creature comforts of my allroad- leather, AWD, dual Turbo, sunroof, heated steering wheel/seats, 6-speed MT, etc- but I have already doubled my mileage and I'm only on my second tank of gas after 740 miles. First tank got 39.26 mpg- I had to drive it to Aspen and back the day after I got it. Mileage seems to be a little less driving around town, but I'm still breaking it in. It's got so much more room than appears; I can literally stand up in the back when the back seats are in up-mode. I can also fit my bike inside with the back seats up- no need for roof racks- with plenty of room for gear, dog, etc. There will be plenty of room for samples, skis, demo shit come wintertime.

Sure, I won't be able to drive like a rockstar up the passes in a blizzard anymore, but with studs I'll be able to get most places no problem. I did it for 10+ years in my old civic HB, this car won't be any different. In extreme cases, I still have my disco and the work van. I couldn't be more pleased with this little car- I'm truly surprised, being a car fanatic and all. It gets looks everywhere I go, people are constantly asking me about it, checking it out. Yeah, it looks like a bug, but it's growing on me. It handles corners better than the wagon, made it up the passes no problem- in fact was passing other cars. It's really zippy and fun to drive! By no means is it fast, but that’s not the point. I got the MT, so that helps. 8 airbags, and decent crash ratings, but I drive it like I’m on a motorcycle anyways. It's really neat, and I couldn’t be more pleased. Smoothest transmission I have ever encountered…seriously.

[f2f]

^ totally agree. no need to overdo it with an overpriced sub-mobile (except for the cuteness factor), just get a reasonable hatchback, save on weight and fuel, but not on space.

[Damian Sanders]

Yeah.....the Smart car is about 5 minutes into it's 15 minutes of fame. It's going to be hot for about the next 6 months, then they are going to stop selling as people figure out that compareable milage and better performance can be found elsewhere. Expect resale values to plummet. People can't and won't drive something like that in this country.

One thing to note about the crash testing. The car is basicly like a ping pong ball. The main structure might be very strong, but there is nothing to absorb or spread out the energy of an impact. That means a very fast de-accelleration and larger forces experienced by people in crash....more so than a normal car. Good luck with hitting any solid object.

I would never drive that thing on a highway.....

[XXX-er]

EEC testing rates the 999 cc Smart at 4.7 L/100 km (60 mpg imp/50 mpg US) for the gasoline model and 3.4 L/100 km (83 mpg imp/69 mpg US) for the diesel. The EPA rates the vehicle at 36 mpg (US) (6.5 L/100 km/43 mpg imp) combined.

I remember seeing the 1st smart car spring 2005 in a small interiour BC mill town ... are some of you really just seeing the smart car for the 1st time ?

there is alot more to the world than north america ,countries where folks pay alot more for fuel and the roads are narrow cuz the road is the original wagon track from the middle ages ... 80 mpg and the ability to fit in some pretty small places will go along way

pretty much > 90% of all the cars I seen in france & england were diesal and I am pretty sure all the smart cars i seen on the other side of the pond were diesal

an interesting perspective from P4B ,on 1st glance considering the price I thot the car missed its price point ...it should have been alot cheaper and maybe its riding on the cuteness factor