Per Wikipedia, the Marxist theory of False Consciousness claims, “material processes in capitalist society are misleading to the proletariat.” Trabants aside, it’s pretty clear that the founders of Communism would love today’s Smart ForTwo. It’s the one-dimensional vehicle that denies its occupants the luxury of time, space and value. But it’ll pop eyeballs like Gisele Bündchen in a Target. It didn’t hurt that my tester had the blessings of noted Mercedes tuner, Carlsson Autotechnik. Too bad it didn’t help.
Styling is one of the few (marketing) advantages of the Smart ForTwo, and your average pedestrian and shallow fashionista already know that. But I reckon most readers of this website cringe after spotting one. The Carlsson styling upgrades neutralize that stomach acid but still keep the general public’s interest. The muscled-up front fascia sports a lower valance, subtle fog lights and a mesh grille are a vast (OK tiny) improvement, while the rear’s wanna-be diffuser looks the part with a quad tipped exhaust. Win.
But the metal’s meaningless without the 25mm lowering springs and upgraded hoops; the standard 15-inch wheels make way for 16s in the front, 17s at the rear. Measuring an inch wider than stock and pushed to the fender’s edge, the Carlsson Smart ForTwo is a pissed-off tween: adorable, assertive, but more than a little awkward.
Since everything’s bigger in Texas, I was more than a little surprised at how well the Smart’s interior fared in a random test of excited bystanders. Classy polymers, fabulous fabrics and a panoramic roof offer more interior blingery than other “economy” cars. The Smart’s ergonomically advanced dashboard is a boon to cubby-seekers: the (normally wasted) space around the steering column makes a great home for your Blackberry, finger foods or spare change. While Carlsson’s aluminum pedals and embroidered floor mats look tuner car cool, they aren’t over the top enough to draw eyes away from the factory stuff: even the stock, leather wrapped, tiller feels even better than it looks.
Fire up the Smart’s three-banger motor and a robust one-liter of engine displacement bellows through Carlsson’s tuned muffler. Even with the hot-rod demeanor accentuated by the lively 10:1 compression ratio, there’s no escaping the Smart’s disappointment of owning one (or three) fewer cylinders than anything else at this price point. Put the tennis ball stitched gearshift in drive and the letdowns roll on like a government-funded bailout.
With an 1800 lb curb weight, the 75-ish horsepower (up from 71 hp stock), naturally aspirated Carlsson Smart ForTwo is somewhat lively on surface streets, especially between 20 and 40 mph in second gear. Leave that magical window of respectability and the five-speed manumatic’s absolutely horrendous gear changes crash the party. With the added exhaust rumble magnifying the loss of engine revs, the dramatic sighing-to-grunting action is “granny shifting” über alles. And it’s a shame the wheel-mounted paddles can’t change the Smart’s tune.
From the moment you fart [ED: dart?] out of a parking spot to a WOT run on an onramp, the Smart is a no fun zone. Freeway maneuvering is an exercise in calculated risks, since you are faster than nobody. Breaking free of the crowd risks exposure to stiff crosswinds that push the Smart around with the veracity of Nelson Muntz. If more people knew what it takes to keep a Smart ForTwo tracking straight in deteriorating weather, the roadside “haw-haws!” would be imminent.
Given the European tuner car quotient, perhaps the improved handling compensates. Like a stocker, the Carlsson Smart ForTwo pushes in corners, unable to defy its SUV-worthy center of gravity. The larger tires add an extra modicum of grip: a welcome margin of safety to ensure the Smart’s copious body roll becomes nothing more than a wake up call for wannabe hoons who missed the latest IIHS crash tests. Turn-in and steering feel is unbelievably dull for a rear engine vehicle: a not so subtle reminder that the Smart ForTwo is a commuter car with zero sporting intentions.
Which normally equates to a smooth ride. But if a stock Smart ForTwo can’t muster a reasonably isolated passenger compartment, the Carlsson tweaks don’t stand a chance. The ride is terrible, “thanks” to low profile tires, lowering springs and a miniscule footprint. Not to mention the noise: road growl is so prevalent that an impromptu phone call from Farago needed a follow up email to clarify our conversation. Or lack thereof.
The Carlsson-fettled Smart ForTwo fixes none of the platform’s inherent deficiencies. It’s still a deeply flawed fashion statement living in a hotly contested price point. Product features, safety and dreadful performance (on premium fuel) are only the beginning. But the Carlsson Smart ForTwo looks like it’s got a pair, which admittedly is half the battle. A better transmission is next on the wish list.
[Motorwerks of Houston provided the vehicle reviewed]
101 Comments on “Review: 2009 Carlsson Smart ForTwo...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
One of the consistent main complaints with this “car” is the transmission. They should have at least offered a proper manual to help alleviate that.
Hmm, I’m so curious about why people are so down on this car. It is a niche car. It sacrifices ride quality to get to terms with the short wheelbase, which makes it eminently parkable and nippy.
“But I reckon most readers of this website cringe after spotting one.” Really? Can some of the readers chime in here? I always cringe when I see people driving HUGE cars and being completely unable to parallel park them.
One of the consistent main complaints with this “car” is the transmission. They should have at least offered a proper manual to help alleviate that.
If they had offered the previous car’s drivetrain, this wouldn’t be an issue. I was very much enamoured with the previous-generation (excepting the you-got-dusted-by-a-Prius performance) and was really disappointed by the new model.
Both were automatics, yet the new car is just awful where the old one was actually fun (but slow).
I agree this car would not get a fair evaluation on this truck and SUV heavy site. I drove one in Philadelphia and was pleased at the ease of maneuvering and parking in the city. Smart’s niche is crowded Eastern cities with small streets and scarce parking. Automatic transmission was a weak point. I wonder why they don’t take the drive train from a big motorcycle, like a Honda Gold Wing, and plop it into a vehicle this size. There are lots of sophisticated motorcycle drive trains that are powerful, economical and reliable.
Can some of the readers chime in here? I always cringe when I see people driving HUGE cars and being completely unable to parallel park them.
Agreed – as a New Yorker, this car makes sense to me, despite its flaws. I think it needs a proper manual transmission, and the “mild hybrid” feature offered on European models.
Hmm, I’m so curious about why people are so down on this car.
Because it and the Prius are on the opposite end of the automotive spectrum from the Ford Crown Victoria Police Package, which many enthusiasts consider to be the pinnacle of automobilia.
Interesting. I owned a 1984 Honda CRX 1.3; it had a 1.3L (60 HP) engine and weighed 1850 lbs. It got 48/64 MPG.
And it was fun to drive.
You don’t have to be a truck-driving redneck to detest this ‘car’, you only have to be someone with a little bit of common sense.
This abomination is ugly, overpriced, slow, uncomfortable, impractical, not fun to drive and not even that fuel efficient. The only advantage it has is ease of parking. I don’t know about you, but I buy cars to drive, not to park. This thing makes absolutely no sense.
Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s a ‘fashion statement’. I’m sure this car would garner more positive feedback at tmz.com
“But I reckon most readers of this website cringe after spotting one.” Really? Can some of the readers chime in here?
I cringe when I see them on the highway in Ohio. Even though they’re fairly tallish, I find them much harder to see than a Miata, or some motorcycles.
They’re everywhere in Seattle (big surprise), and I do cringe when I see them.
Having driven a perky, efficient grey market semi-manual turbodiesel Smart about a decade ago, I really had hope for the brand’s eventual US rollout. But the current US spec is disappointing.
The cute little emperor has no clothes. A small car with very little utility would make sense to me only if it were significantly more efficient and/or a riot to drive. The current US Smart is emphatically neither, which makes it little more than a slightly deceptive fashion appliance.
Things like the Fit and Versa come close to the Smart’s economy and price numbers, but offer way more utility, and are usually way more fun. Hell, my motorcycle gets twice the Smart’s fuel economy for half the price, plus it is stable on the highway, carries more, and can go off road. But it doesn’t “look” green, so no one congratulates me for riding it (yes, I have seen random public congratulations – Seattle’s a weird city.)
I’ve also seen people struggle with parallel parking their Smart – but that’s another rant.
The F word gets pedalled out a lot for this car.
I like it. Cute, easy to park in the city and very little else it’s just a pity they’re priced the way they are.
There’s a Brabus version in black which lives near me. Always makes me giggle.
There’s no good reason to buy a Smart. I can think of half a dozen alternatives which are just better on all counts. Ok maybe not fuel economy, but at what cost MPG?
Mini
Mazda3 i
Fit
Soul
xD
Sx4 Crossover
Easy to park? So is a Wrangler, but you don’t see people buying one of those for that reason alone.
There is a much better car for difficult to park cities (NYC, Amsterdam, London, etc.) and it’s called a taxi.
Twotone
I just saw some deusche nozzle with vanity plates on his Smart that said “my part”. I now dislike these cars even more.
these cars would be amusing if:
1) They installed a real transmission, with a clutch pedal and another gear so that tiny motor could stay in the power band
2) the stability control would settle the f*$@ down
3) They imported the turbocharged version. Or, heck: bring it to your local tuning shop and get them to install a borg-warner K03, the turbo on the VW 1.8T and 2.0T, etc. Big enough to make some power, small enough that it might actually spool. Cherry bomb muffler, side-exit exhaust.
That’s really about it. The n/a version is about as much fun as punching your grandma.
thetopdog: “You don’t have to be a truck-driving redneck to detest this ‘car’, you only have to be someone with a little bit of common sense.”
Well, actually, I think you do have to be a truck-driving redneck to detest this car. Otherwise, if you’re merely looking at this thing from a common-sensical point of view, you’ll just dismiss it as a car designed for a nearly impossibly tiny niche market and move on.
Detesting it requires considerable effort.
Detesting it requires considerable effort.
-
Unattractive
Pricy
Poor performance
Poor fuel efficiency (relative to class/cost)
Poor utility
Poor comfort
How again does this make it hard to detest?
A few things -
We up here in Canerduh got the turbodiesel model up until last year (two years ago? I forget); it was axed to make way for the American-friendly gas sipper. But it makes no sense. You give up a good 10-15 mpg for no appreciable advantage, other than it not being a clattery diesel.
Safety wise, it’s much ado about nothing. I recall a British programme (not Top Gear) doing a “crash test” a few years ago to show how strong the safety cell was despite zero crumple zones. They drove it into a brick wall at around 30-35. It simply bounced off with minimal damage, mostly the plastic body panels shattering. The passenger cell was unmolested. That shows that it’s a remarkably safe vehicle considering its size. Drive anything else into a brick wall at that speed and see what happens.
Handling wise, I refer you to Top Gear. They gave the Smart the comedy-handling-award a few years ago. It simply plowed its way clear off the track at the first corner. So it’s a city-only car (or a fast golf cart), hardly surprising given that IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE A CITY CAR and not a corner carver. Don’t expect some big wheels and firm springs to suddenly make it a track demon.
Plenty of people have stuffed motorcycle engines into the Smart chassis. Hyabusa and GSXR1000 mills in particular. You get 170-180 hp in an engine that weighs 150-200lbs (including transmission). Do the math. But it still won’t get around corners.
Sales of these matchbox cars are not close to expectations, 2 dollars a gallon saw to that. Not to mention they don’t excel in any area except sideways parking.
The Overhauling TV show needs to outfit one with TVs on the mud flaps, 24 inch wheels, turbo motorcycle motor, and a giant woofer in the passenger seat.
@Mrb00st – you can just pop out the ABS fuse, #12 or #18, I forget. Then you can slide all around. I agree about the transmission. I agree it is over priced.
But as for detesting them? I’m not saying you have to *buy* one, I’m just saying I love having them on our streets. I also like seeing Peterbilts, Dodge SRT’s, new Beetles, and Harley’s, although I’d never buy any of them…
Maybe we’re talking about a different type of detest. Would I buy a smart? I’d go for a miata, in my situation. But do I understand why people like them? Yes. I also understand why people don’t. But I do like seeing them drive around.
The smart’s biggest problem is ZipCar. In the areas where smart is the smartest choice, dense, scare parking, cabs/public transit are generally a viable option (as everyone mentioned above) and on the occasions where you need a car for a road trip or to haul stuff, you can ZipCar it or rent a truck/SUV/cargo van.
$17,000 buys a lot of cab rides and zipcar time.
Detesting it requires considerable effort.
-
Unattractive
Pricy
Poor performance
Poor fuel efficiency (relative to class/cost)
Poor utility
Poor comfort
How again does this make it hard to detest?
Many of those things you mentioned are all subjective to individual people.
I own one for the simple fact that its not have any of the qualities you mentioned above, and above all I don’t feel like I’m following the Jones with buying A fit.
Talk about a car the Commies would love
I only needed a car for myself to drive to school and work and it works just fine for that.
It was cheap in the fact that I’ve got equipment that Fit couldn’t even provide, and in CT I paid no sales tax
Even with my heavy foot I consistenty get around 36-38 MPG.
I regulalry fill it to the gills with anything I need to buy at Costco
And there is room to spare, even for a 6′1″ guy like me.
I love everything about it, its quirky, so I guess if you are a boring person then you just wont get it.
As a bona-fide car guy, I don’t see why someone would dislike something so unique. More variety in the automotive world is always welcome.
I guess I’m just a little confused at the downright hate for the thing. Its not like people are being forced to buy something they don’t want.
I know a car for me isn’t just an economic proposition, I enjoy cars far more than that.
We up here in Canerduh got the turbodiesel model up until last year (two years ago? I forget); it was axed to make way for the American-friendly gas sipper. But it makes no sense. You give up a good 10-15 mpg for no appreciable advantage, other than it not being a clattery diesel.
The diesel was comparatively dirty (which is why it didn’t make it to the US) and it was agonizingly slow. It did have a better transmission, though.
It simply bounced off with minimal damage, mostly the plastic body panels shattering. The passenger cell was unmolested. That shows that it’s a remarkably safe vehicle considering its size. Drive anything else into a brick wall at that speed and see what happens.
Very few people drive into brick walls. That said, very few people drive headlong into other cars, so the redneck counterpoint is equally invalid. Suffice to say that the smart is safe enough versus other compacts and subcompacts, and that it’s certainly safer than a motorcycle or any number of tin-can cars made in the eighties and nineties (Civic, CRX, Metro, etc) that got similar mileage.
This thing was designed for dense European cities; only New York has that kind of density in the US. So, unless you really, really need to park in a small space, it’s completely impractical. They focused too much on keeping the length down.
And, speaking for Pittsburgh, anyone who tries the perpendicular parking trick on our narrow streets is in danger of being hit. 8 feet is too far out.
I have a John Deere Gator that can run for 6 hours on two gallons of diesel (biodiesel works, too). It can go 40 mph, drive through 3 feet of water, tow 2000 lbs, and costs half as much.
KixStart :
I can’t stand SUVs and I’m not really a truck guy, but I still detest this piece of shit vehicle.
If you think looking at any form of transportation “from a common-sensical point of view” requires “considerable effort,” I don’t even know what to tell you.
Casual Observer: How fast are you going during that six hours? I’m assuming you aren’t getting 120mpg ;) Is it street legal? I have a bicycle that I’ve never put gas in, it can go 50mph, I can swim with it on my back, and I got it at a garage sale for $60.
I too don’t understand the outright hatred for this car, why are people so threatened by what other people drive?
Like Roundel I like that it’s just enough car for what I would need, I don’t need or want those extra 2 seats in the back.
If you think NY City is the only place in America where this makes sense from a parking standpoint I encourage to get out of your living room and actually travel the country, I live in a city of 6000 in AZ where these make huge sense due to the dearth of parking areas.
I don’t own one, but I’ve always been intrigued. My Insight weighs about the same, probably has close to the same amount of interior space, has about the same hp but I average about twice the fuel mileage with it.
afuller: word, I think an insight is much more functional looking, and I love driving them. I’d take an insight over a smart any day.
It does take effort to “detest” this car. If it’s not your cup of tea, so what, you move on, but to detest it does take effort. I personally see no use to this car in my lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean that others wouldn’t. And for the record, they do make me smile whenever i see one driving around DC where they do seem somewhat practical. (for parking if nothing else)
I don’t think it’s such a horrible car, at all. I’ve ridden a number of smarts and even written a feature story about one. It’s a niche car — small urban commuter with minimal power, decent cabin space and very easy to park — argueably as good at its desgnated role as hyper MPH screamers or pickups are at theirs.
Nick2NY: the point is that a company that makes lawn mowers can build a vehicle with more utility and only slightly less drivability than this car – for half the price.
thetopdog, rehposolihp, roundel:
If you don’t actually own one, then why give it any thought at all?
It’s not relevant to you, unless you inadvertently crush one and then you might just as well be happy the driver didn’t buy an Excursion, instead.
The only routine effect on you is that whoever chooses to drive one is using less fuel than he otherwise might, which is a benefit to you (there’s more for you).
—
If it was cheaper, I’d probably give it more consideration because parking in our driveway and garage is actually at a premium but… Premium gas? Only 40-ish mpg? Over $12K? Only 2 seats? For the single advantage of parking convenience, it’s not the kind of value I seek. Since it doesn’t meet my needs and has no adverse impact on me, there’s no point in my detesting it.
Casual Observer,
If that is true, why doesn’t some lawnmower company do that? Half the price with more utility would bring in customers.
People would give the Smart another look at half the price.
Perhaps you could drop the Marxist references until you figure out what they really mean?
This car is a capitalist model par excellence — it serves a very narrow market niche, and charges a relatively high amount for the privilege.
Agreed,its too much work to detest them.I personally don’t like tiny cars.I guess other folks don’t like big cars whatever floats your boat. The Smart has been sold in Canada for 3 or 4 years now and I still don’t see a whole lot of them on the road.
When I reviewed the Smart 17 months ago http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/reviews/smart-fortwo-review/ I came to the same conclusions as Sajeev: great packaging, fine interior, lousy everything else. So it’s no surprise to me that Sajeev finds a mildly-tuned FourTwo insufferable.
In the past months however, I have spoken with numerous women who really enjoy their Smarts. They don’t care about handling and are unexpectedly indifferent to ride comfort. And surprisingly, they enjoy the exuberant engine noise. A nice interior in a super-cozy package: for some people, that trumps all else.
Can we blame them? Should we blame anybody for their choice? I think that among the long list of consumer’s aberrations, the Smart is a harmless one.
Casual Observer:
Talk about comparing apples to oranges.
Can you take that Deere on the highway, does it have 4 airbags, crumple zones, AC, heated seats, premium sound?
Is it even road legal?
I could make crazy comparisons as well. But I take the car at face value. I value the amount of engineering that went into the car to make it as safe as physically possible and for me the car is priced accordingly.
It’s a car made for Europe, not for United States. In smaller countries where people don’t commute as much and where cities are older (and roads more narrow by design) this car makes sense.
But what good does it do to have one of these here in the States, where it isn’t uncommon to commute to another city by highway daily just to get to work? And the parking point seems to be moot as well – you can’t park your car sideways in a parking space like you can in Europe. Yes, parallel parking may be slightly easier at times, but there’s a ton of parking lots over most of America and in those lots there’s no difference between a smart and a Camry.
And yeah, gas mileage is definitely atrocious at 33/41. Sure, these seem like good enough numbers, until you realize they are for a two-seater golf-cart lookalike with a tiny 1 liter engine. I mean, really? A Mini Cooper gets 28 city/37 highway. That’s with two more seats, more weight, more features, and a 1.6 liter engine with an extra cylinder, all in a car geared for sporty fun.
Roundel
“crumple zones,”
smarts don’t have those either
“With an 1800lb curb weight, the 75-ish horsepower (up from 71 hp stock)…”
I don’t know…when I’m looking at a “tuner” car, I expect at least 5 more HP over stock, maybe even 6.
I don’t detest these, nor the people who drive them. If anything, I feel sorry for them . . . they’re a poseur and don’t even realize it.
This car seems to excel at nothing aside from being a fashion statement. Most people buy Chihuahua’s because they are cute and fit in a purse. Fine. Just don’t tell me you really bought yours as a burglar deterrent.
If this were an EV with similar performance and 100-mile range at the same price, I’d consider it – otherwise… meh.
At least the battery pack would lower the COG and make it a bit more tossable.
Af far as crash safety goes, the lack of the crumple zone actually transfers more force to the occupants on impact. That “barely damaged” passanger cell likely contains broken bones aplenty.
As to parking – there are few official “half-spaces”, so where is the advantage? Another caveat: You have to remember to park towards the rear of a parking garage space so that no one swoops into the space (especially if you parked between to Tahoes) thinking that it’s empty.
I appreciate the photography. Those ‘quad pipes’ are hilarious.
Someone who works at Mercedes in Stuttgart told me that the original platform for the SMART was borrowed either from an old DAF or FAF design. I have not been able to independently verify this claim but it would certainly explain why it drives as badly as it does.
I’m not into the Smart at all. It’s just not competitive for what it is in terms of fuel economy vs. price. I’ll be the 101st person to mention that the Fit is so much nicer. I’d personally take my money and buy a lightly used car with the money.
Every time I see these things, I keep thinking that the driver is trying so hard to be that quirky unique guy that he just comes off as strange. It’s a fashion statement, nothing more. Like a BMW with an automatic trans.
@lite.a.kite: The quad pipes would be a lot more hilarious if there were two on one side and just one on the other.
I certainly don’t cringe when I see one. The style, to be sure, is probably D+, and if they were ubiquitous, I might get sick of them pretty quickly, but the city practicality–I’m referring mostly to parking–moves me. If I lived in Manhattan, this might well be what I’d own, especially with a manual clutch.
I drove one around the Consumer Reports test track, which is incredibly windy, and hilly, and I rather enjoyed it, except for the transmission. Put a stick with a manual clutch in this thing, and it would be fun.
Mikey: Agreed,its too much work to detest them.I personally don’t like tiny cars.I guess other folks don’t like big cars whatever floats your boat.
Mikey, If I lived in Michigan, away from Detroit, I probably would have no use for tiny cars, either. In fact, I remember seeing these things in the Raleigh-Durham area of NC, wondering why people there bought them.
But in the Boston area, makes some sense.
In the past months however, I have spoken with numerous women who really enjoy their Smarts.
If you live in urban areas, it’s a great pick-up car. I’ve actually noticed this.
They don’t care about handling and are unexpectedly indifferent to ride comfort. And surprisingly, they enjoy the exuberant engine noise. A nice interior in a super-cozy package: for some people, that trumps all else.
It’s a pretty good appliance car. Unlike a plug-in electric it doesn’t force any undue compromises the driver, especially for in-city work. I’ve had one as a rental in Europe, and spent a day in one in North America (the old, CDI version that was sold in Canada) and found that, for a DINK couple in Toronto it works very well.
I’d be hard-pressed to pick it over a Yaris (if my concern were mileage) or a Fit, but the base model is not a bad deal, it renders parking effortless, and it’s fine for groceries, a night out or quick day-excursions. It’s also reasonably fun to drive and the convertible is a nice touch. If I still lived in Toronto and/or didn’t have kids (and if it wasn’t made by Mercedes) I’d own one now.
@ afuller:
Greetings from another afuller!
@ others:
The Smart seems to be a fine vehicle for urban or in-town situations where parking is in short supply, speeds are relatively low, and the buyer simply must have their own 4-wheeled transportation.
I am not all surprised it was extremely harrowing to drive this vehicle on the highway. It simply don’t believe it was ever designed or intended for that purpose. I don’t really see the point of bashing it on that basis.
I can think of any number of bikes (Honda Gold Wing) or full-size sedans (Crown Vic, Chrysler LX-platforms) that are far better choices for racking big miles on the highways and byways.