Your opinion on Smart Cars?

[Cybrvanr]

There are a few reasons for buying a really small car...low price, good mileage, or good performance.

I always thought the Smart cars would be a neat idea because they would meet one, if not all these reasons. Unfortunately, it looks like they provide none of these in particular abundance. The price is OK, but for that price, a much larger car can be purchased. The fuel mileage is pretty dismal too for a car of it's size, and it's performance is lackluster

My SAAB 900 convertible gets 32-34 MPG's on the highway...not far off of this car, but with much faster performance, seating for 4, and a reasonable sized trunk...it's a tank compared to a Smart. Okay, let's compare apples to oranges. About 12 years ago, I owned a Honda CRX, which is about the same size and horsepower rating. It got 42MPG on average, and I had occasionally gotten over 50 MPG. The car ran like a scared dog and cornered like it was super-glued to the road. The CRX also had a little bit of cargo capacity too, and yes was roomy enough for an American adult male. The most important thing...the CRX was one of the most inexpensive cars one could buy back when it was new! It seems like the CRX (and others too) has it all over this car, and they were designed 25 years ago!

Jalopnik | Obsessed with the culture of cars

From cars to motorcycles, Jalopnik is your go-to site covering everything with an engine—including automotive news, buying guides, and expert commentary from our staff.

jalopnik.com

 

[jaxsunst]

I saw one in person for the first time this past weekend. It is cute, I'll give them that. But, like you, I was expecting a little more in the way of MPG. It was also smaller than even the pictures I had seen make it look. I think a golf cart is larger.

 

[rp2813]

I've seen these out on the road but they are few and far between still. Both times I've seen Smart Cars on the freeway they've been doing about 70 or so and keeping up with traffic fine. But they look way too small for me. I urged my partner to unload his Suzuki Sidekick after he owned it for only a year because I felt it was a death trap. I feel the same about Smart Cars. I didn't know they were so disappointing regarding mileage. Sounds to me like they won't be selling many of them if that's the case.

 

[jons1077]

Excellent car option!

Tony and I have been to Europe more times than I can count since he works for United. Particularly in France and Germany, we've seen a large number of these well before they were released to the US. I believe in Europe these cars get absolutely riculously high gas mileage. The problem with the US, of course, is the government here would only release these to be sold here if the makers of the SmartCar lowered the fuel efficiency so they would be less competitive in the American market. Personally, I would take a cute little SmartCar that got 80 mpg in a heartbeat. I understand they are supposed to be very safe as well.

Just my thoughts...

Jon

 

[kenb]

I think the Smart Car is perfectly fine for its intended purpose of use in extremely urban environments where vehicle size really is the biggest deal and you spend most of the time either idling or doing 0-25mph. No high speed collisions take place when you are in a highly dense urban area, for which I'm 100% certain it is more than sufficient. I just don't see it as ideal for most of the US, but hey, buyers can decide for themselves if its the right fit for them. They are only trying to sell, what, 30,000 a year out of the 16 million or so vehicles that will be sold in the US in 2008??

Also, keep in mind that North American Smarts are sold only with the larger gas engine, with the smaller, more fuel efficient (71MPG) diesel being reserved for European and other markets.

 

[countryguy]

Smart cars are getting very popular here in Canada. They have been available here for a couple of years whereas they are just now becoming available in the USA. They are actually quite roomy on the inside. My partner who is 6'2" sat in one and had plenty of leg/head room whereas he cannot even fit into a Volkswagon Beetle. And they are fast! I was driving on the freeway at 120 Kmh (about 72 mph) and a Smart car came up behind me from nowhere and passed me as if I was standing still. They are even supposed to be very good in the snow although I don't know how since they are so low to the ground. And they are also supposed to be very safe as well.

Gary

 

[hydralique]

Smart thoughts . . .

The US goverment never, ever penalizes against good fuel economy! The whole problem we're in now is that they have never penalized bad economy to a degree large enough to significantly reduce the sale of vehicles with poor mileage.

What is important to realize is a few points about economy and EPA ratings. From the initial adoption of EPA standardized mileage tests in the '70s through 2007 few cars and drivers in the real world would get near the EPA estimates, particularly in city driving. This is because the old EPA city cycle featured pretty gentle driving and not much idling, whereas normal city driving usually means a lot of idling and then heavy acceleration to 30 or 40 mph. That kills mileage. For 2008 the EPA has finally redone the tests to achieve more honest and attainable results. Using the 2007 tests the Smart is rated at 40 city/45 highway mpg, while under 2008 standards it is 33 city/41 highway. So comparing the 2008 figures to those of any car tested under the old 2007 and earlier standards is not realistic. Daimler-Benz also needs the Smart to have the best mileage possible here to offset their piggy Mercedes cars, since under our absurd CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards the manufacturer must pay taxes for selling cars with poor economy, rather than having the individuals who buy them pay the taxes directly.

For highway mileage aerodymanics is more important than weight, and so small, lightweight cars like the Smart don't always do as well as one would think when compared to larger cars with reasonably aerodymanic bodies. For people who do mostly highway driving the Smart doesn't make much sense, but then again it wasn't intended for them.

The Honda CRX was a great car, and if I remember correctly it weighed pretty much what the Smart does. However, it didn't have to meet modern and vastly stricter emissions standards (the Smart even meets ULEV, or Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle standards), nor did it meet modern safety standards. The Smart passes all the current European and American safety tests quite well, a significant achievement for Smart engineers.

The Smart is in many ways a remarkable vehicle for urban use. A few days ago I had to have a meeting with a professional consultant who works out of her apartment in West Hollywood. All the parking on her street is restricted, and there were no spaces on nearby streets large enough for my VW Golf TDI. After 15 minutes of circulating I gave up and parked a mile away in the nearest city lot and schlepped all my drawings and files to her place for the meeting. On the way I passed two Smarts tucked in tiny, tiny spaces, plus a few Smart-sized empty spaces . . . at that point I had a case of Smart envy. I'm not swapping the VW in for one yet, but if they'll bring over the diesel version I'll sure think about it.

FWIW my VW was EPA rated in 2002 for 42 mpg city/49 highway. It can get close to that on the highway under normal conditions (i.e., a/c running and 75 mph cruise) but ordinary city mileage for me has been in the 35-36 mpg range, or significantly less then the old EPA ratings. It's still a lot more than the 20-22 mpg I used to get in my previous Saab 900 Turbo so I'm happy with it, although $4.25/gallon diesel does hurt.

 

[jasonl]

Smart?

First of all:

I WANT ONE!

I test drove a Smart and got it on the interstate at 75mph amongst 18 wheelers. No problem at all. In fact, it feels reminiscent of the old VW Beetle. Stiff ride, engine in back, small pedals attached to the floor. And oh yeah, FUN to drive.

It's gotten 4 stars or whatever in crash tests which is pretty good. The Mercedes built Tridion shell (its armor) can withstand a head-on. I saw a video where a Smart was put against a real Mercedes and it smushed the Merc.

Also, if Americans drive the smart like they drive any other car, yeah, horrible mileage. But if you drive like you've still got your sanity and don't think of a highway as a race track, you should get about good mpg.

There's three models. The Pure which is a BOL type car. The Passion is a little bit more. Add the foo-foo package with leather seats and automatic windshield wipers and it starts to get pricey. Then there's the Passion Cabriolet which is the one I ordered. It has a upgraded stereo with CD Changer and subwoofer. Still, foo-foo package optional.

From what I've calculated the best bang for your mpg buck is a Honda Fit or a Toyota Yaris (if it has ABS).

 

[jasonl]

The reason why we don't get the diesel here is probably because of emissions, and it's non-turbo, which means it doesn't have alot of oomph right off the line. Again, the way most people drive, you'd get run over.

 

[conate]

these cars look interesting...

Are they really between 11,000 and 14,000?

A lot for such a small car, but for commuting it'd be great.

What is interesting, is that one thing that would SERIOUSLY lower our fuel usage is this: return to the national speed limit of 55mph.

But yet, no one talks about it. Why? Have vigorous enforcement of the limits, and folks will drive slower.

THAT will lower fuel usage enormously.

Nate

 

[hydralique]

The 55 mph limit . . .

was a disaster. Firstly, the government DOES NOT have the legal right to set speed limits, only states do. The only way it was pushed through is by extortion, in that Congress passed laws to deny any state with more than a 55 mph limit their share of federal highway funds. These are tax monies paid by the states to the feds in the first place.

Secondly, rural interstate highways are the most inefficient place to target for fuel savings because cars get their best mileage on the highway, and many people rarely drive on rural interstates anyway. It's a little like a company opening a gym to reduce heart attacks amongst employees, then restricting that gym to people in good shape. It might help, but not as much as targeting overweight and out of shape people.

As in people, weight is the problem. Heavy cars get really poor city mileage and this is where most people drive. Remember, city driving isn't necessarily restricted to large urban areas - someone in a small town may spend most of his miles driving around the town at low speeds, stopping at stop signs and signals, and getting the same mileage as those in urban areas. Lighter cars get much better city mileage and somewhat better highway mileage. Encouraging the purchase of econonical cars and improving traffic conditons (i.e., better signal timing and better road conditions) are what is needed to reduce fuel usage.

The 55 mph limit was also impossible to enforce in an even manner (which is what ultimately lead to it's demise), and is very discriminatory to those who must travel in areas not well served by mass transit or airlines. For them, the only option to go somewhere is the highway and making them do it at a crawl just diminshes quality of life.

As noted above, my six year old VW Golf TDI, with power steering/brakes/windows/sunroof/cruise/nice stereo and four doors has actually returned over 48 mpg with the air on and cruise at 75-80. That's more than many heavy, ineffient cars will get under any conditions, and I frankly resent having to crawl so someone in a Suburban or Range Rover can get 20 mpg. If they want to go 55 then there is no law against it, but let those of us who choose to buy sensible cars go a sensible speed that takes the value of our time into account.

 

[panthera]

Smart

Part of the high cost is simply the absurdly weak dollar. Today, the dollar hit a new record low (tautology? No, 'fraid not).
Since US$ have to be converted into €, the car is inevitably more expensive in the US than it would otherwise be.
At the time the original Smart marketing decisions were made, the Dollar to Euro ratio was just under 2 Euros to 1 dollar...
Remind me again how the Republicans are always good for the economy...
Anyway, the history of the car is fascinating.
That said, they have a pretty good safety reputation over here.
Built like tanks on steroids, they show what can be done with good engineering.
The decision to only offer the engine with the weakest fuel economy may well have a historical background - Americans are easily turned off by cars which are slow in acceleration. Those old diesel Mercedes were outstanding cars, but their 0-60mph in two hours (going downhill, with 100mph tailwind) did not help them in the US market. Flog a Smart and it will make your neck snap back and give you that little kick of passing a SUV like it is standing. That sells.
I often wonder how the Hondas would do today if they were built safely and not pre-rusted...
Personally, given the way folks drive in Cheyenne, I am thankful for my partner's Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance...let them run the light into her and I might notice it...when I go to park her and she won't fit into the garage with their car stuck in the trunk.

 

[sikiguya]

VW TDI

My husband drives a VW TDI and he loves it. It is fast from a complete stop even though it only has 100 HP, roomy, and get excellent MPG. He is going through his first tank of diesel without the winter additive and is at half full. He already has 325 miles on this tank and will easily get 650+ miles out of it when it is empty. It only has a 15-16 (I can't remember) gallon tank. He drives 60 miles round trip daily M-F, most of it country roads or highway going 65-70 (or more). Diesel is around $4.09 here but regular gas is $3.52 so it's a real savings for us.

We have had lots of different cars during the time we have been together (Toyota, Isuzu, Honda, Subaru, Dodge, Chrysler). The Mercedes saved us in a terrible rear end accident. My Amigo was fun and it was PANK so it was the best! The Hondas were both so reliable and great for a family. The Suburu was fun to drive (WRX). The Dodge Ram was a great truck but not fuel freindly. The Charger was a nice car but it was a work car. So was the 300M. The Honda Scooter was fun but not practical in Illinois winters. LOL

I want a diesel Mercedes R Class as my next car (I am wishing and hoping they come down in price or we get a good deal on a used one). I have looked at the VW Toureg TDI and it costs more than the R Class. I currently have a Chrysler Pacifica and it's great but gets sucky gas mileage.

 

[maytagbear]

Paging Louis!

Louis-Luigi-Foralo happens to have a Smart, and I believe he likes it quite well.

I have seen one, and it is cute, and it's a great idea, but I'd rather have a Certified Pre-Owened Corolla for the same money.

Lawrence/Maytagbear

 

[bobbins]

They have been in Canada for 4 years now. Nice little cars...look like toasters with wheels!

Bob

 

[volvoguy87]

Cars and economy.

I am admittedly a car guy, favoring Volvo 240s. I also favor city life and public transportation for daily transit, although a car is great on weekends.

I hate it when a good, solid, economy car is turned into something else. Case in point: VW Beetle, Mini, and the Honda Civic.
The VW beetle was one of the best economy cars ever made. Cheap, respectable fuel economy, pretty reliable, and easy to maintain. The New Beetle is cute, but it's not especially cheap, nor it is particularly inexpensive to maintain.
The Mini was another really good economy car. It was cheap, very basic, and very good at what it was designed to do. The new Mini, while cute, is not cheap, nor is it as fuel efficient as it could be. It is also neither cheap nor easy to maintain. The Mini is not the simple car it once was. It comes standard with power locks and windows (which roll down a tiny bit whenever you open the doors). The new Minis are packed with luxury features and although it is a very nice car, it is not an economy car.
The most disappointing demise in my lifetime in the US has been the Honda Civic and Accord. Both cars earned reputations in the 1980s and 1990s as being reliable, affordable, and well built and designed. It seems, however, that with each redesign of these models (and their counterparts at Toyota as well) that the cars have gotten bigger and acquired more luxurious features. I have friends who had an '82 and a '92 Civic hatchback. These cars were tiny, got excellent fuel economy, were always reliable, and were a blast to drive. They both had hand-cranked windows, manual locks, manual transmissions, and no power steering. They were no-nonsense, bare-bones economy cars and there was nothing about them that gave the impression of luxury. However, in the field of economical automotive transportation, they were the best things on 4 wheels. Their safety wasn't great by contemporary standards, but bu the standards of the time, they were OK. They were cheap, got great fuel economy, never broke down, were easy to park, and were easy to live with. Now, Honda still makes the Civic and Accord, but they are not the same cars they were 10 or 20 years ago. The present Civic is about the same size as an Accord of 15 or 20 years ago, and the Accord is officially a "Large Car." The Accord used to be a mid size, and before that a compact. The Civic was once a sub-compact, but is now a pretty generous compact. I think Honda would be wise to introduce a hatchback, 2-door sub-compact.

Sorry to ramble, but I really think that a good economy car should be small, but well designed, and able to hold a lot of stuff (the classic reason why hatchbacks can be so easy to live with). They should be simple because increased simplicity frequently means lighter weight and better reliability (less equipment to carry and fail). Finally, they should get good fuel economy. If that means a diesel, that's just fine with me. A turbo diesel is also good, not for mind-splitting performance, just for a little zip when I need it.

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist,
I wonder what a Maytag car would have been like,
Dave

 

[Cybrvanr]

From the looks of the posts here, I ought to give one of these a try and see how fun they really are to drive! Sounds like they may be just as zippy as my old CRX was. That car met it's demise when I was T-boned in it. The other driver hit me just in front of the front wheel, and the car just fragmented.. That's when I bought the SAAB 900. I get around 32-34 out on the open road as long as I keep it around 65 or so. Around town, because I'm leadfooted, and VDOT doesn't know how to time traffic signal, I get about 22-24, which ain't too bad I guess. The SAAB is a very well built car though, and I've heard they are pretty darned safe too!

 

[scott55405]

I first saw a smart car in 2002 when visiting Mike in England, and I believe our very own Louis has one. They're very cute, and maybe if I were retired and just driving to the store or whatever, like our Terry uses his golf cart to get here and there.

I don't know what the safety ratings or records are with the car, but I just don't know how I'd feel about riding around in that on the LA freeways. Sometimes even my Mystique feels inadequate in the midst of all those monster trucks (LOL).

 

[iheartmaytag]

I think they are just as cute as a "bug"

BUT--the dealer network is so small those of us in Middle-America won't have a real good time getting one. I think the nearest dealer is in OKC, which is about 180 miles away.

This will be best for what it was desigened to do, be a small commuter car. It is only a two seater so family weekends are a no-no. As a second car, I would love one.