Article Comments: 2008 Smart Fortwo First Look and Drive

65 messages, Last post on Jun 22, 2008 at 7:42 AM

You are in the Smart Car Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? smart fortwo, Hatchback

Article comments for First Look: 2008 Smart Fortwo - Americans' newfound love affair with small cars is about to be tested with the arrival of the 2008 Smart Fortwo. (more)

First Drive: 2008 Smart Fortwo Passion - Once you get some momentum together, it's a pleasure to drive the Smart. Despite its short 73.5-inch wheelbase, the Fortwo absorbs bumps and potholes quite well. The ride quality isn't exactly as supple as a Maybach, but the motions are surprisingly gentle. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 7: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; Prev; Next; Last

#9 of 65 You've got to be kidding me! by cyrussd Nov 27, 2006 (2:55 pm)
This has to be one of the worst ideas I've read about in recent history. A car that is three feet shorter than the Mini; gets "over 40mpg"; priced near a Civic/Corolla; and is made by an American company? This has disaster written all over it. May I remind everyone that not that long ago, behemoths called SUVs roamed the highways/byways... Last time I checked, they still do. Driving this thing around will most assuredly guarantee your place on the road pyramid just above speedbump and center-median. These cars are like sodacans waiting to be flattened by the Hummers/Excursions/Escalades/full-sized pickups/etc. No amount of mpg would persuade me to forfeit safety. Mark my words, this car will be fodder for the American consumer.
#10 of 65 It better be radically improved by 6sptl Nov 28, 2006 (11:11 am)
I drove a smart in France last summer and can assuredly attest that it was the worst car I have ever driven barring a soviet era SKODA. Consumer Reports gave a short take on the present Canadian iteration and reached the same conclusion. There is no denying the car is the cutest thing in 4 wheels in a long time, but there is no denying that it is probably one of the worst transportation devices ever devised. For the same money you can buy a Fit sport which has twice the passenger room, the same milage and actually performs like a car rather than a gokart.
#11 of 65 Geez, give 'em a break already! by swordsman Dec 04, 2006 (8:27 am)
Replying to: plekto (Nov 21, 2006 11:04 am) It blows my mind how pessimistic people can be about products they've yet to see in real life. I agree 40mpg is lower than one would expect. However, that's only a guess without any hard numbers, and he was stating the minimum mileage to expect. Much smarter than giving a higher claim of, say, 52mpg that winds up falling short to 46mpg and making everyone mad. Comparing this mileage to the previous generation's diesel engine is hardly fair, and a 25% weaker engine isn't "just a few less HP". Smart's are naturally heavy because they have a frame unlike anything in the US. Guaranteed, you smack one of these against any other small car in the market, and it'll DESTROY the other car. Don't pass judgment on smarts because of the size... they are anything BUT fragile. If you'd take the time to research the subject, you'd find crash test videos of smarts hitting concrete walls at 70 mph with nary a bend in the frame, and 60 mph collisions with a Mercedes E-class and smart coming out on top. The doors still opened and closed properly in both cases. And that's last generation... the new frames are supposed to be even better. Now, the increased weight is a necessity for several reasons. As the article stated above, the extra size will help remedy the poor handling of the previous model, and lets smart meet American specs so they can enter the market. The resulting additional cargo space will help sales. The larger (thus heavier) engine isn't to satisfy American "lust" for HP (c'mon, since when is 80HP considered excessive?). The bigger displacement is just to keep the little buggers from getting hit when trying to merge in US traffic, where speed limits are merely a suggestion (around Atlanta, most people run 80 in a 55 zone!). I also don't think comparing the smart's price tag with Civics and Corollas is fair. I've yet to see a Civic or a Corolla for $11k. Heck, the Fit can't be had for less than $13k. You're comparing bare-bones Honda's and Toyotas to fully loaded smarts... apples to oranges. Seen any new $15k Honda convertibles lately? Didn't think so. The only thing that comes close to the smart's pricing level is the Yaris, which though it sports a back seat, has nowhere near as many safety features, a lifeless interior, and at best returns 40mpg. And why in the world would anyone take Consumer Reports seriously? They've trash-talked a lot of good cars in the past. Don't rely on someone else to tell you what's good and what's not... best to make those decisions for yourself, and you can't really do that without experience. That's my take. Sad that I have to defend a car that NONE of us have driven. How 'bout we just wait until it comes out and THEN see how things go? Replies to this message: msuman52 (Dec 28, 2006 6:44 pm) merryruth (Jan 21, 2007 9:37 am) edf4 (Jan 21, 2007 7:02 pm) demosthenes (Jun 09, 2007 9:44 pm) luvcutethings (Jun 20, 2007 9:15 am)
#12 of 65 This car is stupid by chevy598 Dec 10, 2006 (4:13 pm)
There is no way I would take that car on the highway in Michigan. I don't care how strong the frame is that car would scare the hell out of you going 70-80 mph. Can you imagine hitting a dear with a car that light or tapping up against a full size sedan on the highway. Mo matter how strong the frame is a vehicle with twice the wait is going to send that sucker flying. This is a limited vehicle to roll around town with and say I got enough money to pretend I am an environmentalist. Back in the 80's the wind blew a Yugo of the Mackinaw bridge into lake Michigan killing a family and i'll bet you this thing ways less than that Yugo. Replies to this message: gracchus (Dec 13, 2006 8:12 am)
#13 of 65 Re: This car is stupid [chevy598] by gracchus Dec 13, 2006 (8:12 am)
Replying to: chevy598 (Dec 10, 2006 4:13 pm) Smart cars regularly drive on the 401 here in Ontario. The 401 is now considered to be the busiest highway in North America and has massive truck traffic on it (much of it coming from Michigan) and there has been no evidence of smarts having a higher than normal incidence of accidents. When driving on the highway, I have no problems maintaining speed (and I don't drive in the slow lane). The smart is loaded with safety features and I just don't feel unsafe when driving it. The smart is great vehicle for both the city (60 mpg...I have the diesel) and the highway (75 mpg). Might not work as a primary family vehicle for everyone due to the lack of seats (though it is our primary vehicle), but certainly perfect as a second vehicle or as a commuter car. Saying that, I won't be buying the new smart until they release the diesel engine in NA (2010?). cheers
#14 of 65 Smart and Expensive by 74apollo Dec 22, 2006 (8:44 am)
I saw this little car when I was in Italy this summer and fell in love (I drive a Mini). Upon returning to the State, I immediately emailed Chrysler to get more info - they said they had none. Several days later, the national news had a story about the car coming to the States at a price between $12-$15,000. Today I was driving through middle America in a little dinky town of 10,000 and saw two Smart cars sitting on a car lot with Mercedes stickers on them priced at $29,000! Whoa! Who would spend that much on a car like this??? Replies to this message: swordsman (Dec 26, 2006 1:35 pm)
#15 of 65 Re: Smart and Expensive [74apollo] by swordsman Dec 26, 2006 (1:35 pm)
Replying to: 74apollo (Dec 22, 2006 8:44 am) 74apollo, it was probably a couple of the ZAP retrofits. ZAP has been importing them for awhile and making them street legal for the US, but the price absolutely skyrockets to the point of being insane. Only crazy rich people that love to be trendy and brag about their "environmental conscientiousness" would ever pay that price. Again, to those groaning about MPG, the smartusa.com website has stated that the 40mpg mentioned is the minimum combined city/highway average to expect. Not too shabby.
#16 of 65 Re: Article Comments: 2008 Smart Fortwo First Look [KarenS] by scoville Dec 27, 2006 (11:47 am)
Replying to: KarenS (Nov 21, 2006 7:08 am) does anyone have info on the tridion frames? it looks like its made of steel. any talk of an aluminum chassis? the one thing we see more of than snow in the north east is road salt. its got to be a diesel for me or not at all.
#17 of 65 Re: Geez, give 'em a break already! [swordsman] by msuman52 Dec 28, 2006 (6:44 pm)
Replying to: swordsman (Dec 04, 2006 8:27 am) Dude. I totally agree with you. People should do a little research about a car before they start talking about the bad that isnt even there.
#18 of 65 i think it will work. by inaudible Jan 11, 2007 (6:13 am)
if anyone has driven the old honda civics from the 92-95 era, this kind of engine should be familiar already... honda had a 70hp engine in the CX. i drove one for several months last year (waiting for the fit to come out) and i had no problem driving from chicago to detroit and back... even with the 70mph limit in michigan. 75hp is PLENTY for any driver who is not hauling cargo. especially in a car that can barely brak the 1000lb mark. the saftey of a vehicle has been proven, time and time again, to be the result of good or bad design... not proportion.