Mini "Smart" Car

[desy]

Vehicles have been studied to be the safest at about 4000lb where accident avoidance is balanced between having enough metal around you.
But even the biggest SUV's which used to have sucky accident statistics now have traction controls and way more airbags so they have come a long way in the last couple years.

I wouldn't be afraid of a Smart due to accidents I'm old enough to remember when shoulder belts were optional, anything nowadays is a pretty safe compared to the good ole days, but I look at the practicality of it.
A VW Golf diesel gets 65MPG 'imperial' where a Smart gets 75MPG for about the same money. If your doing all city driving then a Prius would suit me better.
I'd much rather have the real car thanks

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The gas mileage is a joke. 40MPG. The Honda EX gets 39 and is a real car. The Prius gets way more.

You are correct. Also the Mini Cooper is comparable in m.p.g. and more stylish

The problem is they waited way too long to market them in the U.S.

Maybe the roadster version would have a better chance.

 

[CPA]

Some of you need to realize that some of us are married and have children. What, do I need to drive 3 of those if we decide to go out to dinner some night? Not everybody is single and lives in a big city.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: CPA
Some of you need to realize that some of us are married and have children. What, do I need to drive 3 of those if we decide to go out to dinner some night? Not everybody is single and lives in a big city.

I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm just saying that IMO it's not a good idea to buy an SUV for safety reasons.

When I was a kid my parents had a minivan. Safe, drove like a car, what's wrong with that?

Edit: nevermind, I think my response was out of context relative to yours.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Man - just put a nitro burning hemi in that sucker and, wow!

Peel 50

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Man - just put a nitro burning hemi in that sucker and, wow!

Peel 50

Some of those are pretty cool.

 

[Thump553]

If you saw the Steve Martin remake of Pink Panther (not as horrible as I feared it would be) he tooled around in one of these cars. The car didn't seem much bigger than Martin.

I got on the Smart Cars mailing list and read their newsletters for a while. As others pointed out, this car, while tiny, is an underperformer regarding both price and and gas mileage compared to other, more conventional economy cars.

I'm still holding out for someone to make a hybrid minivan.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: CPA
Some of you need to realize that some of us are married and have children. What, do I need to drive 3 of those if we decide to go out to dinner some night? Not everybody is single and lives in a big city.

Well then you're just not part of the target audience, just as I'm never going to have much need for tampons or maternity clothes.

Originally posted by: rstove02

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Well, how would a Hummer vs an F-150 go? If bigger is safer, then we might as well all just buy semi's. But what if a big semi is going up against a smaller semi? Maybe we should all just drive tanks. Then we'd be talking about gallons per mile, instead of miles per gallon. But just think of how many Ego Units per gallon we'd be getting.

Hopefully that was not a barb at me but just wondering the physics of two vehicles of different sizes if they were to collide. I am certainly not trying to imply that an F150 is superior to the smart car due to mere size difference.

Personally I strive to buy an economical car as possible. The last time I went car shopping (2000), I had the initial choice of a Corolla before heading to the dealership. However due to being 6' 6", I found getting in and out of such vehicle neigh impossible.

I'm saying that if we say "larger cars are safer" which they very well may be, then how far does that go? How big do the cars have to get before everyone feels safe?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The gas mileage is a joke. 40MPG. The Honda EX gets 39 and is a real car. The Prius gets way more.

That is rather sad. My '97 Hyundai Elantra gets 30-35mpg. I'd expect 70+ out of a small car like this.

 

[ericlp]

The Smart has a 599cc, three-cylinder turbocharged Mercedes-Benz engine. The approximate fuel consumption is 48 mpg in town and 67 mpg out of town; averaging out to about 56 to 58 mpg. The maximum speed the Smart can go is about 84 mph. On the Pure and Pulse models the transmission is a 'Softip,' which is a semi-automatic gearbox containing six gears and no clutch. Meanwhile, the Passion model has a 'Softouch' transmission, which is a fully automatic gearbox. The fuel tank in the Smart is about 4.8 gallons, but with the high gas mileage, fueling up shouldn't be too terribly frequent. The Smart needs to be serviced about every year or every 9,000 miles. The Smart does come with a three-year Mechanical warranty, a one-year SmartAssist Recovery, and a six-year bodywork warranty.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
I object to the NHTSA and IIHS assertions that you pretty much need to drive a tank to be safe on public roads. Have these people not considered the high center of gravity that is more likely to cause large SUVs to roll over?

since when did the nhtsa and iihs make those assertions? and yes, they've developed roll-over ratings (the first were borderline retarded, however. they later added a maneuvering test in.)

 

[Czar]

They are faster than a ferrari
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5S1NAMnYKM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi_CgGGDglY

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
REal big in Europe; all over the place when I lived there. I think the Smart Roadster looks pretty badass. Always thought I would be laughed off the roads having one here.

Won't speak for the rest of Europe, but here in Sweden, I've never seen a privately owned Smart Car.
All of them seem to be mobile ad pillars for companies, which makes sense since their fugliness makes them rather eye catching.

At my old job, we had two of those for a while.
They were fairly expensive for what you got(similar in price to cheapo cars such as Civics, etc).
They were ugly as crap.
I only rode in them a few times, but their handling was utterly atrocious.
One time, a chick from the office was driving, she's real small, both short and a small frame.
Me on the other hand, I'm both tall and have a large frame, and hence I'm rather heavy.
When she drove through a roundabout, it felt like the car was going to tip over due to the uneven weight distribution...

Crappy cars in my opinion.

Oh and to throw in a funny anecdote.
A guy at the office took one of those home once, he lived in the city.
When he got out in the morning, someone had actually lifted the car and moved it a bit, so it was stuck between two pillars
Light weight isn't always good

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The gas mileage is a joke. 40MPG. The Honda EX gets 39 and is a real car. The Prius gets way more.

You are correct. Also the Mini Cooper is comparable in m.p.g. and more stylish

The problem is they waited way too long to market them in the U.S.

Maybe the roadster version would have a better chance.

People in Europe don't buy smart cars for their gas mileage, but for their ability to negotiate extremely narrow paths in medieval city-centers and because you always find a spot to park them.

Plus, in many countries they really are fashion statements and status symbols. The wait list to get one can be very long, and this is the reason why they are so expensive. People who like them, really like them. Same thing with the Mini or the new Fiat Cinquecento.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: Tango

People in Europe don't buy smart cars for their gas mileage, but for their ability to negotiate extremely narrow paths in medieval city-centers and because you always find a spot to park them.

Plus, in many countries they really are fashion statements and status symbols. The wait list to get one can be very long, and this is the reason why they are so expensive. People who like them, really like them. Same thing with the Mini or the new Fiat Cinquecento.

Almost exactly my thoughts as I began the thread. Their primary, if not sole real advantage is in parking. Otherwise, other econonmy cars -particularly other diesels, beat them handily by costing little more up-front while having equivalent economy, performing much better, being able to carry much more, and being more comfortable and safe. I was not aware of the status angle, per se, but certainly the fashion/political/environmental statement.

 

[jandrews]

super small cars like this and the geo metro make me scared like hell when i am on the road, regardless of the odds of getting in an accident I would rather pay more and get my jeep and have the extra safety.

 

[MrMajestyk]

In the UK these are a nuisance. Without exception, every driver of this beer can has a death wish, cutting you up and roaring away from the lights. Car for middle-aged motor cyclists.

 

[FoBoT]

my 1990 Mazda Protege still gets 32.5 mpg and has been paid for since 1994 and it seats five adults


what is the point of that tiny wheelbox thing?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
my 1990 Mazda Protege still gets 32.5 mpg and has been paid for since 1994 and it seats five adults


what is the point of that tiny wheelbox thing?

Ahhh a 30%+ increase in gas milage and ability to park it anywhere? Also its seems to be around 11k NEW. And with oil around $100 a barrel it shoudl sell well. Esp since it gets good safety ratings which people will ask about.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Czar


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR6UozdBWRY


its not a problem

I wonder what would happen if they tried something where the bumpers were not the same height

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
I object to the NHTSA and IIHS assertions that you pretty much need to drive a tank to be safe on public roads. Have these people not considered the high center of gravity that is more likely to cause large SUVs to roll over?

since when did the nhtsa and iihs make those assertions? and yes, they've developed roll-over ratings (the first were borderline retarded, however. they later added a maneuvering test in.)

According to the NHTSA,

compact cars have the highest occupant fatality rate while the ?large vans? category has the lowest occupant fatality rate. Among vehicles that rolled over, midsize SUVs have the highest occupant fatality rate while large passenger cars have the lowest occupant fatality rate.

According to the IIHS,

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is urging consumers to stick with bigger, heavier vehicles, which tend to be safer for motorists.

IIHS offered the recommendation as it released crash-test ratings for subcompact vehicles. None of the subcompacts tested received an IIHS endorsement.

Driver death rates in subcompacts are higher than in any other vehicle category, according to Adrian Lund, president of IIHS.

There is a major discrepancy here. The IIHS says that subcompacts have the highest driver death rates; according to the NHTSA, subcompacts are among the worst for deaths, but average for rollover fatalities.

And yet, look at some crash ratings:

I checked the ratings at NHTSA for the Honda Fit, Chevrolet Aveo, Toyota Yaris, Kia Rio and Honda Insight, as a sample, with the Civic as a control. I can't upload the pic at work (photobucket doesn't seem to work), but here is the summary:

All vehicles - 4 stars for rollover
Civic - 5 stars for all except 4 for front seat side impact
Fit - 5 stars except 3 for rear seat side impact
Insight - 4 stars all; rear seat side impact N/R
Aveo - 5 stars front impact; 4 for front and rear seat side impact
Rio - Frontal: 4 & 5 stars driver/passenger; Side impact: 4 stars front seat, 3 stars rear
Yaris - 4 stars frontal; 3 stars side impact

So what I'm reading is that the Fit and Aveo did very well as subcompacts; the Rio did well, and the Yaris has room for improvement. Note that the Fit and Aveo were tested with airbags; the Yaris was not.

When you move up a class to the compacts (Civic), you can get almost perfect crash ratings. So what's all this about needing a large car in order to be safe?

 

[StageLeft]

The maximum speed the Smart can go is about 84 mph.

Wow 84 hahaha, can anybody guess how badly that accelerates from, say, 70-77 if its top speed is 84?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: jandrews
super small cars like this and the geo metro make me scared like hell when i am on the road, regardless of the odds of getting in an accident I would rather pay more and get my jeep and have the extra safety.

Yes, but that's also because in the US you drive surrounded by SUVs, because everybody probably think the same thing about being in an accident with a small car.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: as long as everybody will drive a SUV, you will be surrounded by SUVs.

In Europe SUVs are considered extremely gross, and more or less nobody drives them, so in an accident the other cars would not be as big as here, and by driving a small car you don't feel the only one driving a small box and surrounded by bigger cars.

Besides, these are really city cars, made to negotiate the narrow medieval streets of many European city centers. You are unlikely to drive them on a freeway.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The maximum speed the Smart can go is about 84 mph.

Wow 84 hahaha, can anybody guess how badly that accelerates from, say, 70-77 if its top speed is 84?

Acceleration is actually pretty good, being the car very light. The top speed is electronically limited.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
When you move up a class to the compacts (Civic), you can get almost perfect crash ratings. So what's all this about needing a large car in order to be safe?

'tis EZ to imagine tests not exactly jibing with real use, particularly when the small car is a minority amongst large sedans, pick-up trucks, SUVs, tractor-trailers, &c. An immediately recognizable problem is simply height differential whereby the collision occurs betwixt the upper part of the smaller car and lower part of the larger, thus circumventing safety designs and indeed bringing impact more directly to the occupants of the latter.

The IIHS' recommendation for larger cars is disturbing though since it perpetuates most of the problem (the differential rather than absolute). Furthermore, there are larger heavier cars such as the abundant Ford F150 which may offer an advantage in a collision with a smaller car but is otherwise decidedly unsafe.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
I object to the NHTSA and IIHS assertions that you pretty much need to drive a tank to be safe on public roads. Have these people not considered the high center of gravity that is more likely to cause large SUVs to roll over?

since when did the nhtsa and iihs make those assertions? and yes, they've developed roll-over ratings (the first were borderline retarded, however. they later added a maneuvering test in.)

According to the NHTSA,

compact cars have the highest occupant fatality rate while the ?large vans? category has the lowest occupant fatality rate. Among vehicles that rolled over, midsize SUVs have the highest occupant fatality rate while large passenger cars have the lowest occupant fatality rate.

According to the IIHS,

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is urging consumers to stick with bigger, heavier vehicles, which tend to be safer for motorists.

IIHS offered the recommendation as it released crash-test ratings for subcompact vehicles. None of the subcompacts tested received an IIHS endorsement.

Driver death rates in subcompacts are higher than in any other vehicle category, according to Adrian Lund, president of IIHS.

There is a major discrepancy here. The IIHS says that subcompacts have the highest driver death rates; according to the NHTSA, subcompacts are among the worst for deaths, but average for rollover fatalities.

And yet, look at some crash ratings:

I checked the ratings at NHTSA for the Honda Fit, Chevrolet Aveo, Toyota Yaris, Kia Rio and Honda Insight, as a sample, with the Civic as a control. I can't upload the pic at work (photobucket doesn't seem to work), but here is the summary:

All vehicles - 4 stars for rollover
Civic - 5 stars for all except 4 for front seat side impact
Fit - 5 stars except 3 for rear seat side impact
Insight - 4 stars all; rear seat side impact N/R
Aveo - 5 stars front impact; 4 for front and rear seat side impact
Rio - Frontal: 4 & 5 stars driver/passenger; Side impact: 4 stars front seat, 3 stars rear
Yaris - 4 stars frontal; 3 stars side impact

So what I'm reading is that the Fit and Aveo did very well as subcompacts; the Rio did well, and the Yaris has room for improvement. Note that the Fit and Aveo were tested with airbags; the Yaris was not.

When you move up a class to the compacts (Civic), you can get almost perfect crash ratings. So what's all this about needing a large car in order to be safe?

so, when the tests don't match up with the real world, you blame the real world for being inaccurate?

the real world stat is deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles. now, that may not be the best statistic (deaths per million vehicle miles would probably be best), but it's pretty decent. it'd be nice if they broke the cars out by model, rather than just class. a fit is probably more safe than a kia, but i don't know that for certain.

tests aren't going to match up, because running into a concrete wall is more like running into a mirror image of the tested vehicle than anything else. and when does that happen? almost never. that is where the discrepancy you noticed came from. subcompacts are going to get the worst of it, because the average vehicle they crash into is larger than them. so they decelerate and then accelerate in the opposite direction. the crumple zones and air bags have to absorb more energy than on the larger car, and any passenger is going to experience more forces.

and note, they didn't advocate driving SUVs. for the nhtsa real world data, full size cars, midsize cars, and minivans all did better than full size SUV and full size trucks, although they're all about 33% better than compact cars. i'll note than the new accord is a full size car, as are the toyota avalon and ford taurus. so, you don't necessarily need a town car to be in that class (though, again, it'd be nice to have the data broken out by model).


edit:
another discrepancy between the tests and the real world is that you're looking at tests for current cars, whereas the real world often has decade or older cars running around. cars built a decade ago are generally less safe than current ones (less airbags, no computer crash simulations during design, no steel door beams, etc.). subcompacts have gotten 25% better in the real world data between 1997 and 2004, and that trend will likely continue. compacts have decreased in fatality rate by 20%.