| Author | Message | ||
     Thumper74 |
I cruised next to one today on the Turnpike, it made the Buell seem like a big bike. | ||
| Birdy |
A Smart Car makes a Red Flyer seem big.  | ||
| Mikef5000 |
There's a ton of these sporty smarts over in germany, I really like them! Wish they'd import these! (keep in mind they are still tiny, same chassis as the standard smart we have)  For Autocross and mountain roads I bet it'd be a blast! It's like a mini miata! (Message edited by Mikef5000 on July 29, 2008) | ||
| Teddagreek |
There starting to pop up over here too.. From what I recall they did really well in crash testing.. They don't have a four seater though? There is a pretty cool vid, they shoved a turbo busa motor in it.. They come off as economy car to me, so Hopefully unlike the prius it will not attract the tree hugging hippie smug types... (Message edited by teddagreek on July 29, 2008) | ||
| Tramp |
unfortunately, they're already falling all over themselves for it... | ||
| Bbbob |
I can see them selling well in urban areas where their size will make parking easier. But, there are many import econoboxes that are cheaper, get as good, if not better gas mileage & have back seats. | ||
| Darthane |
From what I recall they did really well in crash testing.. Well, they did better than one would expect, given how tiny they are...but I don't think I'd call 3-4 stars 'great'. | ||
| Teddagreek |
The article I read the new ones where 5 stars.. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Mike , you need a real person to stand next to that thing to get a perspective of it. I do like that lil convertible coupe better than the SMART cart though | ||
| Court |
>>>but I don't think I'd call 3-4 stars 'great'. Actually they were subjected to the same rigorous test and got top ratings. Be mindful that most of the bad stuff that happens in a collision results from mass. There is an amazing ad where they do a 50MPH (working from memory here) into a concrete wall and the door still opens. We went to the test drives with MBUSA and it was a joy. My problem is that first of all they only "take orders", even with cars sitting there. Try handing them a check and they give you a canned lecture. Then when you have a day to think about it you thing "hey, for a few bucks more a Mini is a heck of a lot more fun". Then . . I thought . . . well. . . as long as . . . and so forth. | ||
| Bombardier |
The new model is out with the 1 litre turbo Mitsubishi engine in it and the body is now bigger. I drove the original and I do believe I will give the new one a go as well. A lot more room in them than you would think. | ||
| Tramp |
" Be mindful that most of the bad stuff that happens in a collision results from mass. "  | ||
| Brinnutz |
Smart Cars... How about those Tesla Cars??? HAHAHAH http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/worlds-first-fo .html | ||
| Badlionsfan |
The car nut that lives in my apartment complex just bought one. He's got one hell of a unique vehicle collection. New Smart Car Early 70's Suburban International Scout AMC AMX Whizzer motorbike Here's his smart car next to a pick up truck.  | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
My friend Christian has one. Major Chick Magnet. Just totally about saving the planet and like that.  Seems like a lot of money for a little bit of automobile to this boards "Cheapskate in Chief"  Christian's Smart Car on my lawn You could drive it in the house, but we don't. | ||
| Tramp |
I think the idea of the smart car is more about saving $$$ on fuel, than it is on saving the planet. Much like discussions of motorcycles, until an individual has operated a smart car, the pros and cons remain largely academic. I drove one extensively the winter before last, and I found it to be an excellent, wildly fuel-efficient modus transportus. | ||
| Bombardier |
Also read the brochure at the dealership. Nothing is painted it is all powdercoated and the powder residue is recycled to coat more cars. The plastic is coloured and totally recyclable and all the parts have recycle codes stamped into them to ensure that when they do go to the wreckes they end up in the right place. | ||
| Teddagreek |
 | ||
| Court |
>>> until an individual has operated a smart car I agree and was kind of impressed with the car. The bad thing is that they would not sell it. Handing the guy a check resulted in the check being handed back and the guy say "we are only allowed to take orders". The good news is that while I was talking to the nice fellow my wife found a Porche Cayman and (to this day I have no idea why) suggested "this is a fun looking car that would get lots more MPG than your truck". She was at Ray Catena last week looking at colors . . . .I can't figure this out and have never understood women. In this case, I'm going to let her "be the boss". I saw the coolest thing last week, a Smart car actually parked in space, between another car and a no parking zone, that ONLY a Smart car would fit. The pics I shot would be perfect for an advertisement. Scooters, high end motorcycles (guy at work got one of those Ducati RR thingies, and all sorts of new modus transportus are appearing in Manhattan. We are the PERFECT storm in terms of the nexus of "need meets opportunity" . . some of the nations highest priced fuel, most congested population density and worst (Staten Island Expressway to Manhattan - my daily gig) in the country. The times they are a chaaaaaaaangin'. Court  P.S. - I still would like to get a Blast and have "This Inexpensive AMERICAN MADE motorcycle gets 70MPG" airbrushed on the side and park it at Columbia. | ||
| Miamiuly |
They seem to be real nice covered scooters. Basically a city car which makes sense. And part of the small is because of the roads it was born for in Europe. It would have to be fun to run one at the gap...the busa one may be a bit much at the gap though. Go figure that it is a chick magnet, a big puppy. (Message edited by miamiuly on July 30, 2008) | ||
| Court |
Tell me if this is not the PERFECT photo of what is "good" about a Smart Car in Manhattan?  The neighbors, while less concerned with fuel economy and the environment than I, seem taken with yellow the last month. . .   | ||
| Brinnutz |
 There's them damn fast electric cars rear ending people again. | ||
| Darthane |
Actually they were subjected to the same rigorous test and got top ratings. http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/03/autos/smart_crash_ test/index.htm NHTSA results in an article from CNN. 4 stars for front driver protection, only 3 for passenger. This means they give the passenger a 21-35% chance of serious injury when involved in a front collision with a similar-sized vehicle...of which there really are none. 5 stars for side impacts, though they noted the door disengaged. The IIHS gave it a Good rating for front and side and an Average rating for rear. Another article I was reading hit on the lack of a front crumple zone and noted they they recorded the driver's head bouncing off of the steering column through the airbag. It also received the lowest rollover resistance rating of any passenger vehicle - 3 stars. Be mindful that most of the bad stuff that happens in a collision results from mass. Exactly. As in, the person driving the vehicle with less mass will usually get the raw end of the deal. Obviously I don't consider that a bar to owning an operating a vehicle, since my four-wheeled transportation is now a Mazda3 and I have three motorcycles.  ...don't get me wrong, I think they're one of the 'right' cars for the current climate, though I'd never own one - but that has more to do with the fact that I can get a Cobalt XFE for the same price that gets the same mileage and actually has room for four people or luggage. A single person in a large city might not consider that lack a turn off, and that's precisely why these vehicles exist. It's also why I shake my head when I see a suburbanite running around in one - they are a classic case (IMO) of people letting themselves be led around by the nose.} | ||
| Trojan |
My wife had a Smart ForTwo up until very recently, and it was a fabulous town car. It was even bearable on motorways up to around 80mph, when the ultra short wheelbase made it 'interestingly twitchy' overtaking big trucks  refuelling was a once a month affair with 60mpg common, and parking was so easy that it was even possible to park nose in to the kerb and still be inside the line made by other parked vehicles! We sold it when we bought a Chrysler Grand Voyager and decided we didn't need two cars. What a mistake, I wish we had kept it now and would certainly consider another one. A while ago I saw an article about a compnay called 'Smarts R Us' in the uK that fitted a Honda CBR1000 Fireblade engine (I think) in to the rear of a Smart, and that gave some serious performance! | ||
| Darthane |
Did your Smart have a small diesel in it, Trojan? The US version has a gasoline engine in it that is only rated at 34MPG (hence my earlier comment regarding price/size versus efficiency). Our government needs to get off their high-horses and allow the European diesels to come over as-is. | ||
| Court |
>>>>Exactly. As in, the person driving the vehicle with less mass will usually get the raw end of the deal. That's inaccurate. Let me guess. . . if two cars collide head on, each going 100MPH, you'd say that was the same as a single car hitting a wall at 200MPH? The laws of physics (and collisions) are immutable and all about energy, gaining it and loosing it. Of note is that Steve Anderson, now a Platform Director with Buell, is a well respected accident recreation dude from M.I.T. When two cars, as above, hit head all the WORST that can happen is that each quickly decelerates from 100MPH to 0MPH. If the two cars (granted this assumes they have the same mass) hit head on, each going 100MPH, it is identical to a single car hitting the wall at 100MPH. Matters not weather you were stopped by the brick wall or the other car, your plight is the result of going from 100MPH to 0MPH rather quickly. >>>Our government needs to get off their high-horses and allow the European diesels to come over as-is. That's an accurate statement. We are a much smarter and more intelligent society than we appear to most the world. | ||
| Scott_in_nh |
your plight is the result of going from 100MPH to 0MPH rather quickly. Exactly, but when the "wall" is coming at you at 100 mph also, the time and distance it takes for you to go from 100 mph to 0 mph is reduced resulting in a higher g-loading. I've been in a Smart Car in Germany and liked it. I've also seen a video of one bouncing off an SUV and rolling (in a staged crash). As long as you are belted in, I guess it is a possibility that the bouncing/rolling of the car spread out the collision force over more time resulting in fewer G's and hopefully fewer injuries, but I couldn't help thinking that at that instant I'd rather be in the SUV. Still, it is obviously safer in a crash than a bike so I don't know why anybody here would be concerned unless they were putting their kid, who they won't let ride a bike, in one. | ||
| Rpm4x4 |
Seems odd to have people arguing about how safe the smart car is or is not on a motorcycle forum...  | ||
| Reepicheep |
Cant the bigger car be decelerated from 100 MPH down to 40 MPH, and the smaller care be decelerated from 100 MPH down to negative 40 MPH? That'd be my worry. | ||
| Darthane |
That's inaccurate. Let me guess. . . if two cars collide head on, each going 100MPH, you'd say that was the same as a single car hitting a wall at 200MPH? No, I wouldn't. Don't assume I'm stupid just because you don't agree with me. The laws of physics (and collisions) are immutable and all about energy, gaining it and loosing it. Of note is that Steve Anderson, now a Platform Director with Buell, is a well respected accident recreation dude from M.I.T. When two cars, as above, hit head all the WORST that can happen is that each quickly decelerates from 100MPH to 0MPH. If the two cars (granted this assumes they have the same mass) hit head on, each going 100MPH, it is identical to a single car hitting the wall at 100MPH. Matters not weather you were stopped by the brick wall or the other car, your plight is the result of going from 100MPH to 0MPH rather quickly. This is what I'm trying to point out, though. Your above example is assuming that both vehicles have the same mass, and thus, since they are both traveling at the same speed, will also decelerate at the same rate (100 to 0 in the same span of time). I disagree with your 'worst that can happen' comment. The worst that can happen is that you decelerate to 0 very quickly, and then ACCELERATE in a different direction - which is what's going to happen if what you hit is not a fixed object, its mass is different than yours, and you didn't hit it dead-nuts on in the direction of travel. There is nothing else on the road with the same mass as a Smart, or at least, there are few enough things that are the same mass. I'm sure we can both agree that the chances of hitting something exactly your mass, traveling at exactly your speed, in precisely the line you're both traveling, is so small as to be impossible in the real world. Watch the video of a Smart in a head-on, slightly off-center collision with a Mercedes. The vehicle with more mass decelerates slower, and actually tosses the Smart off to the side, introducing additional Gs in a new plane of movement. Human beings don't react well to that kind of thing, particularly pesky things like necks and backs. Once again, I have nothing against the car and I'm not trying to dissuade people from buying one or be unhappy with their purchase, but thinking that it is as safe as many larger vehicles in a real-world collision with the average American vehicle is a false assumption. For its SIZE, it is remarkably safe...but I highly suggest you avoid testing that safety cage against a moronic soccer-mom juggling her cell phone and latte at 80MPH on the freeway. |
