Hi Robert – My name is Karah Street and I work for a PR firm that represents smart USA. I see that you have written about the new crash test conducted with the smart fortwo by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in which the smart for two was paired against a Mercedes C-Class. Two other cars were paired with larger vehicles from the same automaker (Honda Fit vs. Accord, and Toyota Yaris vs. Camry). What you may not know is that this test represents a type of crash that is rare and extreme — less than 1% of all accidents can compare to this type of test — and it is neither recognized nor required by federal safety regulators. By pitting “big vs. small,” this test seems to have one goal: to imply that bigger, heavier cars are always safer.
The smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government safety standards, including earning a five-star side crash rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the highest ratings for front and side crashes in the IIHS’s own barrier test. As I mentioned earlier, this test unfairly singles out only mini and micro cars, rather than testing vehicles in all segments, big and small.
This test also does not address where we are heading as a society, where people are choosing small yet safe cars for many reasons (fuel economy, smaller carbon footprint, low cost of ownership). smart USA has created a new website, safeandsmart.com, where smart drivers are sharing their own real-life stories of how smart’s advanced safety features helped keep them safe.
I also encourage you to speak with the following organizations for their take on the crash test: 1. Eli Hopson, Washington Representative for Clean Vehicles, Union of Concerned Scientists 2. John DeCicco, Senior Fellow – Automotive Strategies, Environmental Defense Fund 3. Dan Becker, Director, Safe Climate Campaign. For an official statement from smart USA, please visit smartusa.com or read an official blog by smart USA’s president, Dave Schembri. Please let me know if you need any other resources (images, video, etc) from me. Thank you for your time. Karah Street
149 Comments on “Smart on IIHS Crash Tests: Sandbagged!...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
A C-Class is not that big a car. How does the smart compare to and E-Class or S-Class? Or an ML, pickup truck or semi? And the fact that the smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government safety standards, is no defense against a lawsuit. Just ask Detroit.
I just wanted to type smart while resisting the urge to capitalize the first letter.
Thank you.
The list of “organizations” she provided is scary enough. If it was up to any one of those organizations we would ALL be sharing micro mini cars because nobody would be allowed to own one of your own. To much of a “carbon footprint” ya know. ugh…..
Ahhh, yes !!
Microblogging
http://www.sniffpetrol.com/2009/04/14/car-companies-up-shitter-creek/
You cannot argue against the Laws of Physics: a bigger vehicle fares better than a small one in a collision.
That’s why I will only ride in a tank from now on. I’m trying to get the biggest one out there.
Sounds like PR firm bullshit to me. Let’s redo the crash, and instead of the dummy, see which car “Karah Street” will volunteer to ride in?
The smart was tested many years ago against an S class, it did quite well, even though its the previous generation.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-mercedes-s-class-vs-smart.html
The report just stated the obvious that physics rules all, but honestly all of these cars went through organizations like ADAC just fine. I’m not sure what they are grasping for here, other than to perpetuate the American myth that you must buy big to be safe.
where people are choosing small yet safe cars for many reasons (fuel economy, smaller carbon footprint, low cost of ownership).
Yes, people are chosing cars for those reasons, but the Smart is not a leader in any of those. Fuel economy isn’t that good in a Smart, thus neither is its carbon footprint. The things are overpriced so low cost of ownership is out. These things are fashion symbols, nothing else. In Europe they make some sense where dense cities have zero parking space, but in N. America people would be better off in a Fit or Civic or Prius.
The smart was tested many years ago against an S class, it did quite well, even though its the previous generation.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-mercedes-s-class-vs-smart.html
The report just stated the obvious that physics rules all, but honestly all of these cars went through organizations like ADAC just fine. I’m not sure what they are grasping for here, other than to perpetuate the American myth that you must buy big to be safe.
I have seen videos showing this test and Mercedes own internal test. The problem is that seeing the video only gives you anecdotal evidence that the smart is “safe” in a crash with these vehicles. They don’t tell you the HIC (Head Injury Criterion), femur load, chest compression, and neck extension the dummies experienced in these tests. IIHS takes these empirical values into account when providing their ratings, as does NHTSA. The Germans can stand there and say “see how the shape holds together” all they want, but it means bupkis until they publish the recorded dummy variables. IIHS has done that and the vehicle performs poorly.
If smart doesn’t like it, they can take their ball and go home. In fact, I wish they would take their overpriced, underperforming (in every aspect possible) crapbox and go home. Why anyone would buy a smart over any other vehicle out there is beyond me, save for the fashion statement.
I think I’d rather take my chances in my TrailBlazer or Mustang versus anything smart has to offer. Even if you take mass out of the equation, there’s not a whole lot of crush space in the front of that tiny thing, where’s all the crash energy going, and where does the engine go in an impact? That ridiculous little car was made for cities where traffic is horrible and parking is scarce, and it’s short so it can park “nose to curb” and not stick out. Every car has its compromises, unfortunately small ones aren’t as safe just like large ones aren’t as economical, the buyer has to make their decision based on what compromises they’re willing to make.
Will somebody please crash test a Corvette into a Hummer and get back to us with the results. Or a Hummer into a Mack truck. This is not news. It’s the Law of Gross Tonnage at work.
Go drive a Smart….then go drive a base Honda Fit, a Nissan Versa (for LESS money!!) Toyota Yaris, Scion Xa/d and realize how much more car you can get for about the same money. The Smart has room for only two people, virtually no cargo room, is bog-slow off the line, does not get great gas mileage compared to the other cars I’ve mentioned and is an overall poor driving experience, especially here in the states with their cantankerous semi-automatic transmission. Regardless of any crash test results, if you fairly cross-shop the Smart with several other vehicles at the same price point you will take home something other than a Smart.
I’m guessing you’ve all seen the crash results pitting a Ford F-150 against a Mini in a same-scenario accident. If not, you’re better off in the Mini. Link below…
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
Solely to reiterate that size does not always equal safety.
200k-min wrote:
April 14th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Incorrect. The smart fortwo has the highest EPA fuel economy of any non-hybrid.
Also incorrect. The smart fortwo is classified as an Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle by the California Air Resources Board for its extremely low exhaust emissions. It is also certified by EPA as a “Smartway” vehicle, which indicates good environmental performance, placing it among the “greenest” vehicles on the market.
In addition to the carbon footprint under operation, there is the very low carbon footprint in the manufacturing process. Not having hundreds of pounds worth of toxic batteries also helps keep its environmental impact low when compared to a hybrid. So does its extensive use of recyclable plastic body panels and their environmentally friendly finishing process.
Now you are just making stuff up. The smart fortwo coupe starts at under $12K and the convertible starts at under $17K, making it the least expensive convertible in the U.S.
I don’t know if your girlfriend left you for some guy with a smart fortwo or had some other personal tragedy involving one, but I really don’t understand why you feel the need to post lies about them.
I’am an old (62) fart, so I grew in the marvelous heyday of Life magazine, a phenom of its time that people now can’t imagine. It was the way you saw images then. One WWII issue had step-by-step pictures of an appendicitis operation, and a year later was used by a submarine medic on a sub deep in the enemy Pacific Ocean to successfully do one. The last page of each issue was an unusual, even incredible, picture. One showed the aftermath of a headon between a rhinoceros and a ‘53 Chevy (both were totalled).
But back to the subject: one memorable Last Word image was of a crash test staged by one of early VW dealers, when there was much talk of the fragility of the then new and dinky Beetle. This crash test was of a PeterBilt t-boning a Cadillac. It was a high shutter-speed shot: the PeterBilt is halfway through hammering the Caddy into pancake amidst a cloud of glass and metal pieces, and there isn’t a dent on the Peterbilt.
It doesn’t matter how big you are. There’s always somebody bigger or faster. And as a newsmagazine memorably said in the early days of compacts: “Newtonian physics is a two way street: bigger also means slower to turn, to stop and avoid”
well what do you know…someone’s doing their job out there.
There are a lot of justifications to buy a car. Price, style, comfort, power, handling, fuel cost, reliability, environmental footprint, safety, etc. Each car will have its strengths and weaknesses. Each car buyer will have different priorities.
For me, the SmartCar is penny-wise and lb. foolish. I live in Houston — land of the SUVs and pick up trucks. Simple physics says you don’t want to get into a wreck in Houston in a SmartCar.
That’s why I call it DumbCar.
I would rather get nailed by a semi in a Smart car than a 76 Caddy.
Engineering over mass, please. Mass is nice enough, side airbags are better.
On a side note, the Smart may have the highest fuel economy of any street legal vehicle, but for it’s size it’s pretty weak. I wouldn’t be too surprised if you could fit a Smart in the back of a Fit, it’s that much smaller. For a car that size, it needs to be doing 50 or 60 mpg.
Anyways.
We, as a society? I just bought an Escalade. I may live in a bubble but I believe the best selling vehicle on the planet is an F-150. Maybe the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety should have done a more realistic Smart car verses F-150 crash test?
“I’m guessing you’ve all seen the crash results pitting a Ford F-150 against a Mini in a same-scenario accident. If not, you’re better off in the Mini. “
Okay, what about when the F-150 crashes into the Mini. Low mass into a fixed wall should fare better than higher mass into the same fixed barrier, but ram the 2 into each other, and it becomes a different story. An F-150 should decimate a Mini, just based on physics. The heavier vehicle wins, and the fact the the F-150 would hit the Cooper considerably higher than its bumper would also cause the Mini’s crash structure to not work exactly as it was designed. I’d rather be in the pickup in that crash.
F150 the best selling vehicle in the world?
You need to check that – it used to be in the US, but I haven’t seen the recent sales figures – I know late last year it was toppled by the Civic and Camry both in the US alone for at least 3 months straight.
No matter what Smart may say, the fact that the crumple zone on a Smart car is 6-12″ compared to several feet on even most compact cars sold in N. America means that it will always be at a disadvantage in an accident in terms of forces on the occupants. Fifth Gear rammed a Smart into a concrete barrier at 70MPH which is a somewhat similar sort of incident. The structure holds together very well, the concern is the load on the occupants, in the Fifth Gear test the verdict was that the occupants were unlikely to have lived…
The best selling vehicle in the world is the Toyota Corola with 35 million sold since 1966, the F150 is #2 with 32 million sold since 1948.
FishTank : I’m guessing you’ve all seen the crash results pitting a Ford F-150 against a Mini in a same-scenario accident. If not, you’re better off in the Mini. Link below…
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
This might be the most cherry picked crash comparo test in the history of automobiles. That’s a new MINI against late 1990s F150, specifically choosing the super cab with no B-pillar. The 2004+ models had a good rating from the IIHS.
If we’re gonna pit old and new, why not put a Toyota Previa against a Smart car? That’ll be fun!
At least the article states this isn’t an indication of how the two would fare if crashed against each other. Which is still cold comfort for the guy in the MINI.
@ FishTank
The link you’ve left references a 2001 F-150 (http://www.leasetips.com/f150crashtest.htm). Watch a movie: gruesome: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6b2_1186865238&p=1
From 2004-08 F-150s crumple up very, very well in head ons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LkAzt_0qIg&feature=related
As does the new 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Apc0MxwkI
@ Alex and Orian
I stand corrected. I don’t know the answer to this but who has the most popular vehicle by number of vehicles that are still running on the road?
Fifth Gear rammed a Smart into a concrete barrier at 70MPH which is a somewhat similar sort of incident. The structure holds together very well, the concern is the load on the occupants, in the Fifth Gear test the verdict was that the occupants were unlikely to have lived…
They did the same with an Corsa, which despite the presence of a “real” hood was subject to the same result. Basically, ram anything into a concrete barrier at over 100km/h and the deceleration will cause real harm.
The point of that test, or any, is dealing with excess kinetic energy. In head-on vehicle-on-vehicle, the smaller car is going to eat the difference. In the case of a T-Boning, it works somewhat differently: if the strike is indirect and you spin out, good. If it’s direct to the middle of the car, not so much because the car getting T’ed eats much of the force of impact.
And then there’s what happens when you hit a tree. A reasonable-size speciment (say 2″ in diameter) with utterly destroy even a very large and heavy car because of how focused the area of crash is.
Point being, the original poster is right: head-on vehicle-on-vehicle is rare. More problematic is crash compatibility, where a small car is struck above the safety cage by a larger and taller vehicle. More problematic still are the legions of idiots who don’t wear their seatbelts, drink and/or drive excessively quickly for the road and conditions.
This IIHS test is a PR exercise to encourage people to drive compatible cars. It would be nice if “compatible” could be translated into “smaller and lower-bumpered” but I feel that’s too much to hope for.
She is basically right.
The test was pointless, and simply vindicates science. Such tests are concocted to scare people into thinking that the manufacturers are trying to skirt regulations by pushing smaller cars onto an unsuspecting society. Baloney – just as bikers understand the risks associated with riding, so small car buyers understand the risks of their purchases.
I’d rather have a Yaris or smartfortwo than something (anything) built 20 years ago.
superbadd75 :
where’s all the crash energy going, and where does the engine go in an impact?
The engine is, I believe, in the rear.
Alex Dykes
The structure holds together very well, the concern is the load on the occupants, in the Fifth Gear test the verdict was that the occupants were unlikely to have lived…
Maximum survivability in a crash is approximately a 10g deceleration (and that’s for a 28 year old Marine, not a 75 year old Blue-rinse). Into a solid object where you decelerate from 60mph to zero, it’s a simple calculation to work out you need a minimum of about 15 feet stopping distance. There isn’t a car out there with that much crumple zone. Airbags may stop you from impaling yourself on the dashboard, but the deceleration will cause your brain to explode as it squishes against the inside of your skull.
@Sajeev Mehta – as EricTheOracle points out, that’s a 2001. Late 90’s sounds so old ;-)
My point is that we should not gauge crash worthiness by size. Not a slam against the F150 – more a nod to the Mini’s cage build, especially considering size. Taken one step further – imagine how well it would do were it built as a mid-size and above.
Then don’t get into a wreck! Learn to steer, brake, and accelerate to avoid crashing. Don’t just stand on the brakes and brace for impact. The accident you successfully avoid in the smaller, more nimble car might be the one which would have killed you in your SUV. As Colin Chapman (founder of Lotus) said, we need minimum handling standards, not better bumpers.
We’ve become a land of cowards. I remember growing up with friends driving around in MG Midgets, Triumph Spitfires, Triumph TR6s, Saab Sonnets, and other sports cars back when the average family’s car was too big to even fit into today’s parking spaces. No airbags or supplemental restraint systems were even available. Of course, we also rode motorcycles and many of us (including me) still do. When we bought our vehicles, we bought what made us happy — what we wanted to drive/ride.
As an aside, I am always amazed when some smoker comes up to me and announces that he/she would never drive a car as small as my smart fortwo because small cars like that are so dangerous.
Two cars hitting at a combined 80mph, and this dosen’t happen very often in the real world? Are you kidding me? What planet do small car defenders live on? Given that 40mph is the speed limit in many urban areas, and also the fact that most drivers go a bit faster than posted limits. I think 80mph compined is a very realistic test speed.
The real joke isn’t that the car builders try to make these smaller cars sound as safe as anything else on the road. (Huge effort by Daimler/Smart)Its the greenies that push these shit cans as the only responsible vehicle choice other than a bicycle.
Reading the comments defending this car is a pretty humorous exercise.
“I’d rather have a Yaris or smartfortwo than something (anything) built 20 years ago.”
Nice way to set up a straw man argument and then knock it down.
For an out the door price of about $15k (power steering is an option on this car), you’ve got a lot of other cars available, new and used. FWIW, the Smart is a 1 liter, 3 cylinder car – it should get KILLER mileage. It gets 38 mpg combined.
The Mini is 40 inches longer than the Smart. That’s how small this car is.
less than 1% of all accidents can compare to this type of test
This is the most important part of the post. Perspective is lost without it.
Ooh big surprise, small cars don’t fare as well as big cars when you mash them together. What I’m interested in is what percentage of auto accidents are head-on crashes at speed. This is just like the “SUVs are prone to rollovers” revelation of not too long ago. It’s obvious and, surprise surprise, every vehicle design has strengths and weaknesses when it comes to crashworthiness.
Maybe they should crash all those vehicles into a pole or a parked car on the side of the road and see how they do. Maybe they should drive all the cars into a lake to see which ones sink the fastest. Maybe they should test all cars to see which one holds up best when a moderately-sized meteorite crashes into the roof of the car. Basically, you can’t engineer for all possible crash scenarios and it isn’t valid to make a blanket “small cars are therefore unsafe” conclusion after this. There is too much variation in cause and scenario to really determine a single best car. The very people who run away from a Yaris and into a Tahoe might find themselves upside-down in a ditch after an unsuccessful stop and/or avoidance maneuver.
Obviously, I’m a small car advocate, and I think they’re perfectly “safe,” or as safe as one can be when rocketing at 75 mph down an interstate full of people gabbing on cellphones and environmental hazards. Small cars are only less safe in the specific case of ramming another car head-on at speed. They probably fare better than larger cars in terms of stopping distance, visibility and maneuverability. This IIHS test doesn’t really tell anybody anything they shouldn’t have already figured out, but it’s making them forget the many safety benefits of a smaller car. BOOOOOOOO.
Didn’t Top Gear have Clarkson drive a Smart into a brick wall to test first hand the “egg” safety cage?
found the link….it was fifth gear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s
and preaching to the choir here…but the smart was designed as an URBAN (sub 30-mph) runabout….primarily good for parking in tight spaces. (MPG stinks given its size, costs, etc.) and even if you live in a city, it’s much cheaper/convenient to just hail a cab (if cabs are plentiful where you are).
I would never allow anyone I cared about to drive one regularly on roads where speeds > 40 mph or drive a smart on a rural two-lane high-speed highway.
I saw a smart on the interstate last week. Made me wonder how it would react to the usually crash with a semi truck? Would it get crushed or would it just get kicked off (or bounced off) the road like a ball?
Sure, but it’s not as though the test was pitting F-150s or SUVs against the smart fortwo, Yaris, and Fit. The test involved Camry, Accord, and Mercedes C-Class as the other cars.
Those who are complaining of bias should also note that people here are not exactly hating on the Yaris or Fit; in fact, most people are touting the Yaris and Fit as far more reasonable alternatives to the fortwo. Yes, the fortwo gets pretty good gas mileage and isn’t that expensive– unless you compare it to what you get. Its better fuel economy isn’t all that impressive, either, considering its size. A 36 combined MPG isn’t that much better than the 30 of the Fit; it’s 2.8 gallons per 100 miles compared to 3.3 gallons per 100 miles. For comparison, that’s less than the difference in consumption between a 21 MPG car and a 24 MPG car, or a 16 MPG vehicle and a 18 MPG vehicle. It’s much, much smaller than a Geo/Chevy Metro (Suzuki Cultus), without much more power.
***I saw a smart on the interstate last week. Made me wonder how it would react to the usually crash with a semi truck? Would it get crushed or would it just get kicked off (or bounced off) the road like a ball?***
given the fifth gear footage….I imagine that the smart would get crushed and bounce off like a ball.
And in such a scenario hope that the smart isn’t hit by a secondary impact (like another car or the median).
Yea, your SUV or pickup seems safe until you need to panic stop while avoiding an obstacle.
At that point any sideways moment is going to send your giganto lead box on stilts into a roll, at which point you have 0 control of the vehicle and you better have said your prayers.
Oh yea, and while rolling your now dependent on the roof, which as has been posted on TTAC before, is only designed to hold 50% more than the vehicle actually weighs.
But yea, as long as you don’t need to stop or steer the SUV or pickup might be safer…
Small car vs large car accidents are “rare”? Well great, I’m sure that’s because of magic and unicorns and not because, you know, there may be fewer Smarts and Fits out there than Accords and Camrys.
I’m also sure that this pointless statistic will comfort Smart owners immensely, as it means that they only have a 1% chance of being in an accident with a car that’s larger than their vehicle. Oh no, wait, that’s complete bullshit and any reasonable person should recognize it as such.
Smart is really dumb.
Of course small cars aren’t as crash-worthy as larger ones. But small cars have their own advantages.
1) Larger ones, especially trucks, have higher CoG and thus they found in the ditches more often.
2) Small cars are cheaper, so they are safe for the cost. I.e. Tata Nano is not as safe as a Camry, but it’s as safe as you can get if you can only afford a $2500 car.
But with the “Smart”, both points are void:
1) The CoG of the “Smart” isn’t any lower than a Honda Fit. In fact, the Fit is wider, and thus geometrically more stable.
2) The “Smart” isn’t any cheaper than the Fit/Versa, a car three times it’s size.
The “Smart” is really dumb. It’s only smart, if it’s priced right, i.e. $5000. Then you can say it’s as safe as you can get for $5000 new car.
Non sequitur much? What does that have to do at all with the IIHS Crash Tests, which said that the Fit/Yaris/fortwo were less safe than the Camry/Accord/C-Class? Sure, a higher center of gravity on an SUV or pickup does make rolling over more likely, but the tests in question weren’t about SUVs or pickups.
“small car buyers understand the risks of their purchases”
Do they really?
The average person goes to YouTube and sees a Yaris bouncing off a wall with the same visual impact as a Camry. That sort of imagery makes a strong, but unfortunately misleading, impression.
I agree that the recent IIHS study is silly, but I also think it is necessary.
See, this is why science relies on measurements and statistics rather than gut feelings. It’s very rare that two vehicles crash head-on into one another without braking first. In fact, head-on collisions like the one simulated here, at any speed, are rare. Think about how often we hear about someone being “rear-ended” or “T-boned at an intersection.” What percentage of time do you drive by an accident and see two vehicles that impacted head-on with an 80mph closing speed?
That’s why it’s important to analyze not just how well a car comes out of an accident, but how well it is equipped to avoid one. The fortwo stops from 60-0mph in 20 fewer feet than a Ford F-150. If cut-off, its small size makes it far more likely that there is room for it to make an emergency lane change.
Obviously, all of that assumes that the driver is competent, attentive, and sober. If you tend to drive around drunk, distracted, or just lack basic driving skill, then you would be safer in a larger vehicle. But the rest of us would be less safe, so get a moped if you insist on driving impaired.
What I would really love to see is statistics indicated the likelihood of each type of crash: car-vs-car and car-vsobject.
Most people prefer large vehicles on the basis that they fare better in the case of a crash vs a smaller vehicle. But unless stats show us that they are the most common type of crash, which I highly doubt, this is nothing more than another version of “mine is bigger than yours” and has nothing to do with actual safety thinking.
http://www.aiam.org/public/aiam/safety/crash_statistics.aspx#P9
is full of stats but does not indicate if more than one vehicle was involved for each given crash.
sitting@home,
A quick Wiki lookup tells us that us mortal humans can easily tolerate 12G continiously eyballs-out, and that crashes over 100G are survivable. Think shock loads, not continious force.
By that measure, a stop from 30m/s (about 70MPH) will require only 45cm, or a foot and a half, of WELL-DESIGNED crumple zone. Oh, and either a very good airbag, or a 5-point harness.
Which brings me to a second point – cars without an engine upfront tend to fare extremely well in a front-end collision. People crashing front-end into a wall/car in an MR2, or Elise, or a similar car, at 60+mph can often pop the door open (post-crash, of course) and walk away with a slight shock. Try that in a Corolla.
Of course, usually multi-vehicle accidents are t-bones (which you SHOULD be able to avoid by, well, looking left and right before crossing an intersection) or rear-end impacts (where speeds are usually lower and your biggest concern is the kind of head restraint you have, not your crumple zone). And even then, your biggest enemy is not the guy in an F150, but the blob of grey matter that sits between your left and right ear. Think of it this way: it’s ALWAYS your fault that you got hit. Always.
I have a different beef with SmartCar. For the money, it should offer a better interior. For the weight and engine size, it should offer better gas mileage. For the seating capacity and shape, it should have more cargo room. Finally, the damn thing didn’t have to be so uglyfyingly tall.
Nevertheless, it’s got a unique value proposition, and people oughtta stop dismissing it for safety. If you worry so much that the guy in the F150 will live longer than you… Just spend the extra $$$ you’ll save from buying small on PPO health insurance and stop worrying. Cancer kills more people per month than car crashes kill in a year, yet people keep on smoking, eating junk, missing sleep, skipping showers, and bashing small cars like they’re all experts in physics and collision statistics. Talk about priorities.
Guys, my fingers are getting tired, so if you could please stop posting stuff that is flat-out wrong, I’d appreciate it.
First, it’s smart fortwo. Notice the lowercase letters. It will help your cause of trying to sound authoritative if you type the name of the car correctly.
Second, the Honda Fit does not have an electronic stability control system. The smart fortwo does. That’s super-important when discussing stability and rollover resistance. Second, the track (what you really meant, rather than vehicle width) does not determine the stability. Stability is related to everything from suspension design to cg (not “CoG”) to mass distribution to tire choice and pressure.
Base model smart fortwo: $11,990
Base model Honda Fit: $14,750
Yes, the smart fortwo is much smaller. That’s why I bought it. I have a Yukon if I want to drive something huge. Are there really consumers so stupid that they choose their cars based cost per pound/cubic foot?
Dude, it’s not up to you to dictate what people you care about drive. Nor should you because you don’t have enough understanding of engineering to make an educated choice for them. Would you let them drive that road in a 1991 Toyota, 1989 Honda, or 2002 Nissan subcompact? Because all of those cars are far less safe than a smart fortwo.
With the way Accord and Camry grew, I bet many people are considering Civic and Corolla as a sensible “mid-size” purchase. After all, current Corolla’s wheelbase is exactly the same as Camry’s from early ’90s – 102.4″.
For those in the market a much more informative would be a crash test between Corolla and Camry and between Civic and Accord.
“FishTank :
I’m guessing you’ve all seen the crash results pitting a Ford F-150 against a Mini in a same-scenario accident. If not, you’re better off in the Mini. Link below…
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
Solely to reiterate that size does not always equal safety.”
Hold on a minute, that test was not of a Mini crashing into an F-150, it was a comparison of their individual crashes into an artificial barrier. I agree that size alone does not tell you the probability of getting killed or injured in a vehicle, but it is certainly a factor. The referenced web site starts with this:
“Wow. Both of these vehicles hit the exact same off-set barrier at 40mph. Now keep in mind that this is not a test of how the two cars would fare in a head-on collision with each-other.”