"Smart car"...

[firedome]

...not so Smart...

you'd have to be suicidal to drive one of these ridiculous "cars"... the Laws of Physics have yet to be repealed.

If fuel economy is one's prime directive an electric or hybrid will be far safer and get better "mpg".

 

[bradfordwhite]

And yet we don't hear "stories" about people dropping dead and the car being pulled from the market. It's only been made for 25+ years.

A compact car is certainly better than some clunker truck or SUV that doesn't have to (but should have to) conform to the same CAFE standards.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy | NHTSA

Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards regulate how far vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel. Learn more about CAFE & vehicle miles per gallon.

www.nhtsa.gov

 

[qsd-dan]

Honda needs to bring back the CRX-HF in its original form. A mid 80's CRX with a carburetor gets better fuel mileage than some hybrids with the newest technology in a smaller package.

 

[bradfordwhite]

Back when Honda had the energy

I want my 1994 Honda Civic CX back.
It was so cute and peppy as most light cars are. Easy to clean, easy to garage, uses very little gasoline, cheap to insure, reliable, drove so smooth. Covered all the important stuff.
I think I paid upwards of $12,000 for it new and it had 5 miles on the odometer.
I certainly wouldn't pay much more than that today for a vehicle.
Got 40-46 MPG.

Now days, Honda has nothing. They are literally dying on the vine. No originality, no creativity, no cars that are electric. I'm surprised both with Honda and Toyota. I expected better. The only car that Honda makes that I'd consider is the Fit/Jazz, but apparently that isn't sold in the U.S. at the moment. Very strange.

 

[rp2813]

I remember those CRX models.  A big husky (I'm being nice with that term) guy I was acquainted with drove one of those.  It must have been comfortable even though as my dad used to say about small/sports cars, "You don't drive that car; you wear it."

 

In certain color schemes, myself and others thought the CRX resembled a tennis/running shoe.

 

[bradfordwhite]

"tennis/running shoe." LOL

The 1990 Ford Festiva is a better descriptor for that and equally cute.

My Aunt and Uncle around 1989, after their three kids were gone, and five years after paying off their mortgage 17 years early, saw what a scam it was to be driving their old clunkers, a 1979 Granada and 1978 Ford F-150 truck, as commuter cars.

They ditched them both and got a pair of 1989(ish) Ford Festivas, a blue and a red one. She commuted 10 miles into town for her job at the hospital and he commuted about 20 miles in the opposite direction for his job. Both having been in their jobs for at least 20 years at that point were in peak earning years so they really socked away $$$$ for retirement at that point.

Everyone always thought it was cute and their kids called the pair of cars pregnant tennis shoes.

Ford is another good example of a car maker that is now just garbage.
They recently had to be bailed out in order to stay competitive in the new electric car world. Disgrace.

In all fairness though, Ford didn't build the Festiva, nor the Fiesta before it. The Festiva was made by Kia, which is in better condition now than Ford.

 

[qsd-dan]

Had a neighbor with a blue mid 80's Honda CRX she drove 80-ish miles round trip into SF everyday. It had 270K miles on it when she moved in early 1999. I remember after the '89 earthquake, she was complaining about the commute almost doubling until the roads and bridges were fixed. Never did ask her details of her longer route but now I'm curious, lol. I just looked her up and she's 84 years old living in a retirement community. Holy shit, time flies by!

 

 

[henene4]

It ain't perfect

But for a city car... Yeah, don't see the issue:

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/crashtest/details/474/smart-fortwo/

It's the same way a guy I went on a few dates with once (he was paramedic) swore that old Audi A6's were the safest cars cause he never pulled a dead body from one.
If you have an opinion, it's just that, an opinion.

Yeah, physics don't change. Engineering does though.
There is a very specific reason why it isn't uncommon to total newer cars even in collisions as low as 50kMh / 30MPH inner city nowadays.
The frames of modern cars are specifically designed to compress in certain areas and not others under very specific loads.
Everything about a car now is exactly calculated to spread energy dissipation throughout structures so that your body only experiences prespecified loads.

If your car is totalled, but you walk away unharmed, I think the value proposition of that is obvious.

I certainly feel perfectly safe in Polo, even on the highway.

Fuel efficiency. Yeah the Smart wasn't terribly efficient that is true.

My Polo gets something like 40MPG in daily driving.
My mum gets about the same in her Fabia - which has the newer revision of basically the same motor.

At some point, you won't get much more efficient regardless of size.

 

[mieleforever]

My wife has a Mercedes W169 A class 180.

At first I was a bit sceptical about it, but have grown to really like it. It is surprisingly spacious inside, yet very easy to park or drive around town. It is relatively light on fuel and got more than enough oomph to get going on the highways.
I have also seen the Euro NCAP crash test on them and it really did good.

We are a family of 5 and we all fit (for the time being) rather comfortably. I have driven it rather hard and it behaved with much aplomb.

Given the state of economies all over the world and the fuel prices everywhere I can't say that we will be going back to a big fuel guzzler anytime soon.

 

[combo52]

Collision speed

No car ever built was repairable in a 30 mph collision into a solid object.

You used to be killed in a 30 mph collision, the good news is today. You have a very good chance of surviving it with minimal injury.

John

 

[firedome]

Alas, those pesky facts are an inconvenient thing...

"we don't hear "stories" about people dropping dead and the car being pulled from the market."

just what is your data base for that statement?

Here's the inconvenient truth:

https://www.nber.org/digest/nov11/v...by a 1,000,thousand increase in fatality risk.

Now go watch the PBS "Frontline" episode from last week all about car and semi trailer collisions.

There's a very good reason that CR recommends not driving a car with a weight under 3200 lbs.

 

[firedome]

"No car ever built was repairable in a 30 mph collision into a solid object."

Likely true, but I don't care about the car. Instrumented testing has demonstrated that you might well survive in the right vehicle, but that category would not include a "Smart" car.

As always YMMV, drive what you want folks, but economy won't do you much good when you're dead. That's false economy if ever there was such.

 

[firedome]

more facts from IIHS

https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight

"Kia Sorento vs. Kia Forte and Toyota Avalon vs. Toyota Yaris iA
In the first of the two demonstration tests, a used 2016 Kia Sorento, a midsize SUV, and a 2018 Kia Forte, a small car, collided with each other. In the second test, a used 2015 Toyota Avalon, a large car, was paired with a 2018 Toyota Yaris iA, a minicar. Both the Sorento and the Avalon are among the IIHS Best Choices for teens. The Forte and the Yaris iA have good ratings in the five IIHS tests relevant to driver protection, and the Forte is a 2018 TOP SAFETY PICK+ winner.

In each test, the vehicles traveled toward each other at 40 mph, with 50 percent of the smaller vehicle's width overlapping the larger vehicle.

Forces on the driver dummies in the smaller vehicles were much greater than those in the larger vehicles. Measurements indicated a high likelihood of head injuries for the driver of both the Yaris iA and the Forte in a real-world crash of the same severity. Right leg injuries would be likely in the Forte and possible in the Yaris iA. Neck and chest injuries would also be possible for drivers of both vehicles, and left leg injuries would be possible in the Forte.

In contrast, the Avalon and Sorento had mostly good injury measures, aside from a possible right leg injury in both.

The structures of the Forte, which weighs 928 pounds less than the Sorento, and the Yaris iA, which weighs 1,033 pounds less than the Avalon, didn't hold up as well against the larger vehicles as in the car-to-barrier tests on which IIHS ratings are based."

Etc etc.
The Laws of Physics cannot be repealed, just another inconvenient fact.

 

[firedome]

oh and btw:

Engineering is the application of the Laws of Physics.
Within the parameters of weight and structure a vehicle can be made only so safe:

P = M x V... momentum P is directly proportional to the object's mass (M) and velocity (V).
Engineering can't change collision V, but M varies depending on vehicle choice. Within a given M a structure can only designed so much to absorb P.

The fatality-proof car has not been made, but choices can determine the odds,
this is the point. Ignore it at your peril.

 

[henene4]

Ok, so

First off, it appears to argue with "Drive a heavy car, it will kill the others, not you!".

Which is so typical of people driving their huge SUVs without a thought.

Momentum has 0 meaning in any regard to driver safety though.

Force is mass times acceleration.
Force is what kills you.
Mass is your body weight.
Acceleration is how much your car slows down per time.

The reason a heavy car safes you there is that if your car collides with a lighter car, your car has more momentum and just ploughs through the other car.

As soon as the other car is as heavy, or it isn't a car you collide with, well, tough luck!

Again, a typical American thinking.

We could make things truely safe and give such weapons to no one - or we could argue that if everyone had such heavy machinery everyone would be equally unsafe, and those without it - well it's their fault.

Next argument against any of you is the number of traffic deaths.

In the US, 14,3 people per 100k die in traffic accidents.
In Germany, it is 4.

So what is the reason for that?
Well, infrastructure, mainly, yes.

But, you know, cars aren't the only part of traffic. I know, shocking, isn't it?
Cause per billion km, the US has fewer occupant deaths!
So you are right, aren't you?

Well, you are in a way. If YOU want to be safe and that is all you care about that is great, get a Semi. Or a tank!

If you want traffic to be safe, saying a Smart car is unsafe is the stupidest thing one can say.

Sure if a truck rams you, you are gone.
In most any other situation, you are perfectly safe.

We could further go into roll-over safety, road wear, deaths due to pollution, etc.

Selecting your data to suit your argument and disregarding all context will always be more comfortable than changing your opinion.

 

[henene4]

To make my point

A VW Polo: 96% in tests for grown up occupants.
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/crashtest/details/649/vw-polo/

A VW Up!: 89%
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/crashtest/details/372/vw-up/

A Yaris: 86%
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/crashtest/details/754/toyota-yaris/

And then heavy cars:

A Ford Kuga: 92%
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/ford/kuga/39116

An Audi A6: 93%
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/crashtest/details/684/audi-a6/

VW Touareg: 89%
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/vw/touareg/33478

In the same tests, in the same conditions, there is no correlation between weight, size, and safety.

The only time size is safety is if it is unsafe for the other party.

 

[bradfordwhite]

There are all kinds of made up facts to support driving gas guzzling, expensive to insure, and just generally more expensive vehicles.
That's a no brainer that seems to elude a lot Americans. Why?

I, as a genuine American, born and raised on this land.... that White settlers stole from the Native Americans.... am in my 50s and have nearly always drove what in this country is oddly referred to as a "compact" or "SUB-compact" car. Known in places like the UK as a typical/normal size car.
Things like a Honda Civic hatchback, Honda Civic DX 4 door, Ford Escort 2-door, 2007 Kia Rio (fun and cute car).

I've driven my fair share of miles, typically 15k a year.
Of the few accidents I've been in in the last 35+ years, happened when I was young and inexperienced, and doing something stupid like inattentive driving.

People in Europe, the UK, and just about every other country on the planet manage to drive compact and sub compact cars without any problems.

Why is that only delusional "Americans" have these weird fantasies that trucking around in 4-8000 pounds of recycled, gas-guzzling, over-priced steel-plastic-and- glass think they are some how desirable?
Why do they seem to block out how irresponsible that is to the environment and to other drivers?

One thing is good about those kinds of people is they are also a threat to themselves. The absolutely ridiculous prices that some dealerships have tried to get for junk vehicles and the stupid people who ACTUALLY bought into that crap has now spawned a repossession epidemic.  The banks that went along with financing all that crap see what's coming.  They are going to be left with the damages.   There is a whole crop of people who have tens of thousands of negative equity on junk vehicles...just amazes me.

 

 

 

 

[kenwashesmonday]

Years ago, my 2600 pound 1968 Rambler American was T-boned by a full size International Harvester school bus, and I was pushed sideways about 40 feet. I drove home, but the bus had to be towed because the bumper was pushed into the front tire. Of course my car wasn't worth fixing because the B-pillar was trashed, but that lightweight AMC unibody sure protected me from any harm.

I've noticed that most of the huge pickup trucks they sell today do very poorly in crash tests compared to cars that are much smaller and lighter.