I’d rather have a Mini Cooper – or even better, a motor scooter.

Considering what you’re getting, though, a Yaris or Accent makes a far better baseline car. Buying a Smart, and only a Smart, means you have to be certain you’ll never want to carry more than two people, carry any appreciable amount of stuff, or drive a long distance. For most people, that’s probably way too much of a sacrifice. Now, sure, the “what-if utility” argument is often used in support of SUVs, but most people have probably done something they couldn’t or wouldn’t do in a Smart in the last week, if not every day.

I’m sure it also makes a decent commuter vehicle, if you don’t mind that it’s horrible to drive, but having a “commuter car,” as opposed to simply “a car” is presupposing a certain level of luxury in one’s lifestyle to begin with, which is pretty far away from aforementioned stereotyped environmentalist ideal.

Now, if it wants to be a niche vehicle, and only a niche vehicle, that’s perfectly fine, but I’d appreciate it not being held up as an example of whatever outside of that very specific niche.

And when we speak publicly of this car’s engineering or financial downsides, they are not part of the public’s misguided perception. That’s just how it’s made, and performs.

The argument has been perfectly debated by kgurnsey so I have not much else to add.
The smart really is in a class by its own. The size of the car makes sure that it can’t be compared directly to even somthing such as the 3 door Yaris. That car is much larger even compared to the smart. I don’t see exactly what the issue is with the asking price. This isn’t a Nano and the amount of features in the car as well as the engineering to make it as safe as it is, has to be taken into effect. Sure some of it could be due that its also built in France, and we are trying to account for the strength of the Euro. But the fact is that Daimler has produced a tiny car that is just as safe as larger car, relativly speaking. I would have to agree that your comment on “dubious” safety is based more on opinion other than reality of the overall safety of all small cars. Anything older than 5 years old (or even newer) runs the risk of not having ample airbags, traction control, better designed crumple zones etc. Its quite absurd to think that an 8 year old civic would automatically be safer than the smart.
I think its quite obvious that some people have unreasonable expectations for the car based purely on the size of it. People think it should be far more effiecent, but want it to be safe as well. The car may have a very unfavorable power to weight ratio, because of all weight that is added for safety requirement.
People also think just because their 1982 Civic acheived 50 mpg, this should too. That argument is not even worth considering.

I am aware that being a truck driver is a hard job, not one I would want personally, but that’s not indicative of professionalism or skill. My Dad just recently finished the trucking course, and it wasn’t exactly tough. My uncle has driven just about everything there is to drive over many years, and “professional” isn’t a word I’ve ever heard him use about his colleagues. He’s a pretty intellegent, well informed person who should have been doing something much more intellectual, except that life threw him a few curves at the wrong time. Instead, he’s worked as a driver most of his life. He tells some pretty horrifying stories about the trucking/heavy machinery biz.

Many drivers don’t own thier own trucks anymore, and all my Dad’s instructors spoke emphatically against it, which shifts the inurance and fuel costs to the business. I’m sure the business are freaking out, but the drivers are a different story.

I don’t mean to insult anyone in the trucking biz, but I call ‘em as I see ‘em. And I see ‘em every single day too and from work. I’m sure there are many very good drivers out there, and maybe it used to be much better, but the current state of affairs around here is not good. I understand that many states in the US are far more strict, which my Dad, my Uncle, and I all agree is a good thing.

Having said all that, I wouldn’t expect crash tests to include tractor trailers, and was mostly embellishing to convey a point. I would settle for mid size sedan, or perhaps a small SUV sized rig for the test.

Bingo. Maybe one day the IIHS will care more about flashy news bites and provide the same level playing field of the concrete barrier.

Besides, there’s always a bigger fish out there. Should we test SUVs against fully laden tractor trailers? Do we even need to test a smart or a Fit against that, or is the resulting smear not obvious enough?

As a side note, the person in the SUV getting creamed by a tractor trailer would also count as a pretty decent “tough shit” moment. Just when you think you’re “safe”…

Tractor trailers are usually driven by professionals who are absolutely terrified of the insurance premiums’ effect on their business. SUVs, since they are still passenger cars, are pretty much the polar opposite.

Not to mention the sheer numbers of SUVs on the road, and their increasing age leads to poorer performance from a lack of upkeep. The likelyhood of a 0-10 year old SUV crashing into “you” is way more likely than a Semi. I see them as the biggest threats on the road to small cars…but I admit that’s more of a Texas-centric problem.

I agree as well that current frontal offset collision tests show very little in reality. I would like to see frontal offset crashes performed with a standardized rig, much like the side impact tests are done, with both the car in question and the rig pulled together at speed. That would give a much better, and comparable, evaluation of collision performance.

What that standardized rig should represent is a matter of some debate, I would expect. Personally, I would opt for a mid size sedan, like the Camry you mentioned, perhaps set it at about 3300-3500 lbs. Though it would be interesting to see what kind of grusomeness you could produce by having a more SUV-like rig, it’s probably overkill to assume that everyone who hits you is going to be a Suburban. That could lead to skewed results of a different sort, and just feed fuel to the automotive arms race. Besides, there’s always a bigger fish out there. Should we test SUVs against fully laden tractor trailers? Do we even need to test a smart or a Fit against that, or is the resulting smear not obvious enough?

As a side note, the person in the SUV getting creamed by a tractor trailer would also count as a pretty decent “tough shit” moment. Just when you think you’re “safe”…

So I counter that there are more reasons why it’s a “bad” vehicle: price/value was just one. I could write 800 words on what a raging POS that transaxle is under any driving condition. The review and its following comments should cover all concerns/complaints out pretty well.

Regarding safety: I don’t think we crash test enough cars into each other in this society. Concrete barriers are dandy, but I see more car-on-car accidents on the road…maybe that’s why those are the incidents that scare me.

I agree that IIHS’ crash testing the Smart v. C-class was unfair relative to the Yaris and Fit…all three small cars should be crashed against the same car, such as the best selling Toyota Camry. That is the fair way to test Tridon vs. Crumple Zone.

But the world is full of tough shit moments, and any car/truck on the road can hit you…not just a C-class or Camry. Hell, they need to crash cars into last-gen Chevy Tahoes going 10-20mph over the speed limit to reassure me, because that’s the most common vehicle my neck of the woods. I’m just kidding…I think.

I am not trying to convey “hate” for the Smart ForTwo. The review did admit that it looks cool with the Carlsson goodies and the attention it garnered adds to a wow factor you will not get in a Fit.

I’m gonna go with “extreme disappointment” instead.

I was not aware of this recommendation.

Do you have a source?

Your arguments are price, which I would counter by saying most niche products are more expensive, octane penalty, which was proven to be negligible, and “dubious safety”, which somehow is only a determent to the smart, and not the Fit or Yaris.

It doesn’t make sense to state that a person can get a much better value with a Fit, essentially recommending it, and then turn around and take a shot (let alone a full broadside) at the Smart for its safety without acknowledging that the Fit is just as unsafe. Both cars are relatively unsafe, as is the Yaris. All small cars are at a disadvantage due to mass. It’s not a disadvantage to the smart alone, relative to its more functional competition, but it’s being touted as such. As I’ve stated before, the smart out performed the Aveo and the Accent handily, which are roughly comparable, and equivalent in class to the Fit and Yaris. Yet that fact is nowhere to be seen. That would be bias, and the smart is not deserving of it. It is just as safe (or not, depending on your perspective) as a Fit or Yaris, and significantly better than an Aveo or an Accent, for similar money. That’s a fact.

That leaves the functionality/dollar argument, which I get. I wholeheartedly agree that the smart is not as functional as a Fit or a Yaris, and for most people the smart is not a valid choice. But it’s not an inherently bad car because of that. It’s one thing to say “If you’re looking for a frugal car that will be as versatile as possible, maybe this isn’t for you”, it’s another to say “It sucks because it doesn’t haul much, and it takes premium.” One is a reasonable, truthful statement, the other is inflammatory. The smart is not for everyone, to be sure, but it has a niche, and it fills it well.

I’m sorry you’re disappointed, but it is what it is. Just because it’s not the super cheap everyman fuel sipper that the masses wanted it to be doesn’t make it bad. It just means people need to adjust their expectations to reflect reality, and that’s not the car’s fault.

I still don’t get the hate.

No doubt. Much like my MacBook to PCs, its a niche product with an unsettling position relative to cars like the Fit. Hell, even a strippo Civic is fair game, on price and highway fuel economy alone.

Unlike my MacBook, users of the Smart don’t fare so well after it crashes. (sorry, I couldn’t resist)

——————————
kgurnsey : According to the US DOE, the smart will cost the average person about $951 per year on premium. The Fit and Yaris would both cost an average of $993 per year. Granted that YMMV, but even if you drove the snot out of the smart, and grama drove the Yaris, the difference would remain negligible. How is that a huge disadvantage?

Unless I missed one of my comments, I didn’t say it was a huge disadvantage…but I did say “dreadful performance” about the entire package.

It’s not a huge disadvantage, it is a huge disappointment. Why pay this much for a Smart when you can get more car (and transaxle) from Toyota or Honda for (roughly) $40 more in gas a year?

Stating that a person can buy a new car with more utility for the same money is reasonable. Stating that you can get a safer used car for the same money is reasonable, if you choose your used car wisely. It’s also reasonable to assume that a bigger car will also cost more in gas, to a more significant degree. Pick your poison. We agree that the smart is not for everybody; in fact I would go as far as to say that it’s likely not for most people.

However, stating that the smart sucks because it’s less safe than other new cars in its price range, commonly using direct comparisons to the Fit and Yaris as examples, simply because it’s smaller, is asinine.

According to the recent, and much debated, car on car IIHS test, all three small cars faired, near as makes no difference, equally poorly. Therefore, casting the used market aside for a moment, how can you state that the smart is less safe for your money than the competition?

Also consider that the lightest car in the group was up against the heaviest mid size car in the group.

smart: 1797 lbs.
C Class: 3505 lbs.

Fit: 2546 lbs.
Accord: 3386 lbs.

Yaris: 2377 lbs.
Camry: 3303 lbs.

That equates to a roughly 1700 lb. difference between the smart/C Class, and only a ~900 lb. difference between the other two pairs. The weight difference is roughly double. That’s a lot, and considering the smart didn’t fair that much worse, speaks very well to the engineering that has gone into creating its passive safety systems.

Let’s not even bring up the type of collision simulated, and the statistics involved, which has been debated elsewhere.

Stating that the Fit or Yaris is any safer for the money is simply untrue. The facts don’t support that assertion. Implying that an Accent or Aveo is any safer just because it’s bigger than a smart, when their crash results were considerably worse than the comparable Fit or Yaris, is not a defendable position, and amounts to more fear mongering than truth. I shudder to think what an Accent would look like after going toe to toe with a Sonata. I’ll take the smart, thank you very much.

Offering both sides of an issue is not backpedaling, it’s just good reporting. Perspective makes the truth a bit more truthful, and less of a single sided rant.

No. The Smart’s asking price, octane penalty (for lack of a better phrase) and dubious safety systems for Americans (relative to any other car at that price, used or new) are facts, not a stereotype.

And when we speak publicly of this car’s engineering or financial downsides, they are not part of the public’s misguided perception. That’s just how it’s made, and performs.

-Stan (Florida)

I’m not disagreeing with you entirely, I just don’t understand the hate.

Those are all excellent points, which I do agree with.

Regarding the hate: I have to state this vehicle’s amazing shortcomings without backpedaling with the standard “its a niche vehicle and that’s good enough for some people.” And, unlike my (mind numbingly apologetic) Grand Marquis review, I nailed the Smart because every bystander in this town–no matter race, age or socioeconomic status–assumes the Smart is cheap, unbelievably fuel efficient (too bad about premium fuel: its about $0.28 more right now) and has cutting edge technology that will set the market on fire.

We may know better, but people think the Smart is a 50+MPG hybrid on looks alone. But when I tell them the Truth about the Smart, the faces turn sour.

Hence why I say what I say, and do the job I’m so fortunate to do. :)

I appreciate the photography. Those ‘quad pipes’ are hilarious.

Same here. A base Boxster has only one pipe, right?

I guess 4 wheels is too much for the driver then. Mind u sometimes I have to struggle to park my bike and lock her up too, does the lock up considered a separate process?

Which, again, is why it’s a niche vehicle. For the normal, average, north american, the Smart does not make much sense. For some though, whose priorities are outside the norm, the reverse is true. For some, getting the best bang for your buck, or the biggest car for your dollar, isn’t the top priority. In the land of free choice, isn’t having lots of options a good thing? If the market exists to produce the product at a volume that is profitable, is that not enough justification?

I’m not disagreeing with you entirely, I just don’t understand the hate.

On a more technical note, I would argue that your tin can comparison is a tad off base. From the IIHS:

Aveo:

Front: Acceptable
Side: Mediocre
Rear: Poor

Smart:

Front: Good
Side: Good
Rear: Acceptable

Big difference. I realise that they aren’t exactly the same weight class, but they are close enough to compare with a reasonable grain of salt. The Fit and the Yaris score very well also, roughly equivalent to the Smart, and the Accent is downright dismal. The ratings take into account forces acting on the occupant, which is a much better indicator than a simplistic statement like “the aveo has a bigger crumple zone.” Trucks have huge crumple zones, and often rate extremely bad in collisions. Why? Because it’s complicated, and engineering a safe car is difficult and sometimes counterintuative.

Collision safety is a very complex set of variables, with multiple possible routes to a viable solution, given a particular set of required comprimises. The chassis isn’t the only part of a car that is able to deform in order to dissipate energy either. Delamination is a legitimate method of energy dissipation, used extensively in F1 cars. Different materials react to collision forces differently, and can be used in combination to dissipate and direct energy in a particular way. The size of the crumple zone isn’t as important as it’s efficiency, which is dependant on materials as well as design. Controlled seat deformation and seatbelt force limiters are also legitimate methods. Airbags help as well. Besides, energy dissipation is only one part of the overall equation. The fact that the occupants sit higher reduces injury related to SUV bumper height, and the short wheelbase uses the wheels and suspension to reduce side impact intrusion. A rigid frame in certain areas is important to reduce intrusion and maintain a safety cell around the occupant, a la roll cage in a race car. The Smart uses some of these techniques, though not all, but the point is that it’s not a simple equation.

I’m pretty sure Mercedes used E-Classes and S-Classes to crash test Smarts during development, so I’m pretty sure they took size differential into account as much as possible. When you set out to design a car this small, it’s obvious that just about everything else around it will be bigger. Design accordingly.

The Tridon shell won’t repeal the laws of physics, but niether will a Fit or a Yaris. Take a hit in one of those from an SUV at speed and you’ll be just as big a puddle of mush. That’s no big news, it’s just physics. That’s a choice that all small car drivers make, and have always made, either explicitly or implicitly. What it does do is an impressive job, given the challenges of making a package that small any measure of safe in a collision.

Please even the people who made this car recommend not to drive it on the highways.

It is a good car and please stop comparing it to BMW or Honda again.

Their tons of rich people in Boston that drive this car with no complaint. Why do they it a city car and it looks great.

Micheal Blue : Actually, this car is practical. For people who want to get from point A to point B within an urban area without carrying much stuff. There are many of those. It’s much safer than riding a scooter, a moped, or a motorcycle, can carry more stuff than those in all kinds of weather.

I can see your point, if the Smart retailed for 10k or less. It’s the Harley Davidson of compact cars, it doesn’t sell for performance (speed, fuel economy on premium gas, safety, etc), it sells on style and the lack of space. Which I understand the parking issue, and its the only high point in this vehicle.

——————————

And to those who think Tridon is a good enough safety system, they are putting their lives at risk for no good reason. A structure that focuses on crash absorbing is far better than the absorb+deflect+spin combo of the Smart (a la recent IIHS tests). Who knows where the hell you will end up after you spin, especially given the US’s bazillion different geographic features. I’m okay with spinning into a Houston bayou, but sure as heck don’t want to spin/slide/roll down a hill.

Come on people (in the USA) this cute little turd is the same price as a Toyota Corolla, Mazda 3, Honda Fit/Civic and other fun and efficient vehicles that don’t require $0.20 to $0.40 more per gallon of fuel and aren’t a death trap if a Toyota Camry (or bigger) hits you.

Not to mention local dealers will often sell a loss leader Fusion/Camry for this price. And if you really want a little tin can to putter around in, the Aveo is far, far cheaper.