Article Comments 2008 Smart Fortwo First Drive

110 messages, Last post on Aug 07, 2008 at 8:31 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 Drive: 2008 Smart Fortwo - The 2008 Fortwo is larger than its predecessor, but it's still outrageously small, some 40 inches shorter than a Mini. In real life, it looks like an artist's impression of what a car might look like if we all drank skinny lattes. (more)

Full Test: 2008 Smart Fortwo Passion - Bottom Line: Hugely versatile as a city-only car, but perhaps not the best choice for those who go farther or need to carry more. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 12: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; ...; 12; Prev; Next; Last

#2 of 110 It wont work long term by blue330xi Feb 22, 2007 (5:41 pm)
This car will be trendy for a little while then it will bomb. 0-60 in 13 sec is unacceptable. Couldent they have stuffed in a 1.5l?
#3 of 110 ... by plekto Feb 22, 2007 (6:03 pm)
1: It gets sometihng like 40 city and 60 highway. Speed isn't the goal here. 2: Most cars from the 70s and 80s weren't any faster. You don't need 0-60 in 5.8 seconds for a car like this. Due to the car's light wieght, the slowness to accelerate is all at the top end. It will do 0-40mph pretty quickly. It's built as a city go-kart and not an Autobahn mauler. 3: "Expect the price of the Pulse to begin at about $11,000, while the Passion should start at $13,000 and the Cabriolet will begin at $15,000." 4: The 70hp version will be like the Mini - the base model. The 83-90hp turbo version will likely come a year later. Frugal is why I'm buying one - 60mpg highway and no batteries or other expensive crud. $11K. What's not to like? Replies to this message: joe131 (Feb 23, 2007 5:01 pm)
#4 of 110 Can't repeal the laws of physics by sellaturcica Feb 23, 2007 (1:35 am)
Unfortunately, you can't repeal the laws of physics. Don't get hit in this thing.
#5 of 110 wow by alfaromeoguycz Feb 23, 2007 (7:16 am)
I guess many of you have never driven one of these before. I own the European diesel version as my city car in Prague. 1) Performance: The idea of 13.3 to 60 is not bad at all; figure most European base model vehicles hit it in the same (think of driving a VW Golf with a 1.4l engine), its not an issue. Like Plekto said: its for the city and how many times do you hit 60mph between stop lights? As for the handling; it was made for the tiny, winding, rough European streets, not for lapping road courses. 2) Fuel Economy: My diesel ForTwo WILL NOT GET 60mpg unless I'm on the highway with speeds of around 70kph (roughly 42mph); so to think the gas version will get 60--fat chance. The Europe gas versions pull high-40s on the highway and low 40s in the city; which compared to most American cars is excellent. 3) Safety: Read the EU crash tests (NCAP); the ForTwo does much better than a lot of cars (even beat out a few BMWs and Mercs if my memory serves me right). And the NCAP testing is much more agressive than the American crash testing. 4) Pricing: $11k is a dream; for those of you who don't know, Smart is practically bankrupt--DC is the only thing keeping them afloat. When they couldn't be profitable in Europe with the cars selling for between $15k-$25k USD, how long will the $11k price last before the company folds? Plus not to mention the dealer markups similar to the PT, Beetle, Mini and others.
#6 of 110 70's car specs [plekto] by joe131 Feb 23, 2007 (5:01 pm)
Replying to: plekto (Feb 22, 2007 6:03 pm) My 1978 VW Rabbit C 4-door had the smallest Rabbit engine ever offered, 1457 cc. I think it made 77 horsepower. It was roadtested at 12.1 seconds 0-60 mph and 18,0 seconds in the 1/4 mile. It may have weighed close to 1800 lbs. I got around 30 mpg in it with a 4 speed stick. It was fun to drive and had great road manners. It topped out at 100 mph. With A/C, it cost $6000 in 1978. It was roomy enough with 77 cu.ft. for passengers as I recall.
#7 of 110 A few things.. by plekto Feb 24, 2007 (12:13 am)
The quote on the price was from a review, so that appears to be a correct price-range, and makes sense when you factor in that the overseas prices include tarriffs, vat, and registration most of the time in their prices. 11K for a stripped-down model is exactly what all of the delivery companies want. My only real gripe is that they lengthened it just enough so that you can't park it sideways in a parking space. As for fuel economy, the 40/60 is probably a bit high, but expect to get ratings of that on the sticker, or at elast 50mpg highway. In real driving, though, they get about 40mpg combined, which isn't too bad, actually. Replies to this message: joe131 (Feb 24, 2007 10:25 am)
#8 of 110 Re: A few things.. [plekto] by joe131 Feb 24, 2007 (10:25 am)
Replying to: plekto (Feb 24, 2007 12:13 am) If they only get 40 mpg combined hwy/cty then they'll flop big time. US likes bigger, not smaller when it comes to cars. A person would have to give up too much in the way of size, comfort and utility to make the extra few mpg attractive. Look at Toyota Yaris. You get 4 doors, nice handling, comfort and space for about the price of the Smart. And the Yaris still gets around 35 mixed gas mileage. Smart sounds dumb to me.
#9 of 110 Really? by plekto Feb 24, 2007 (10:48 am)
- It comes with side airbags, traction control, abs, and stability control standard. Yikes. A Civic doesn't have all of that on the base model. Shoot, many 25K cars don't stil. - It has leather as an option. - Convertible is available as well(looks sweet, btw). It's so not a Yaris. And it will get Prius mileage(which is close to 40mpg in actual use - not as high as advertized, but not bad, either). But mind you, that's actual use with the typical driver flogging the engine. EPA tests are unrealistic and so it should get something like 35 city and 50highway, with a combined closer to 40-45. How do I calculate this? Simple - MPG is mostly due to the displacement of the engine, number of cylinders, and weight of the car. And the Smart is dead-on with the Geo Metro's specs here. Almost the same weight, same size 1L 3 cylinder engine... And that got 50-55mpg highway. I suspect Mercedes will have tweaked it a bit more, though, so we'll have to see how well it actually does. They'll almost certainly be gunning for the magic 50mpg highway figure given that they are offering a smaller output engine for the first year or two.(ie - why de-power it unless you wanted to get silly MPG?) Me - I'll love getting 40-50mpg. Besides - here in Los Angeles, typical freeway traffic barely is faster than 30mph most of the time. There's just no way you can actually use a 6 second 0-60 car around here, since there's no place to drop that hammer. Replies to this message: joe131 (Feb 24, 2007 11:02 am) snakeweasel (Feb 27, 2007 6:57 pm) joe131 (Feb 28, 2007 11:24 am) and 19 more... mike91326 (Feb 26, 2007 6:42 pm) joe131 (Mar 16, 2007 1:40 am) snakeweasel (Mar 16, 2007 4:11 am) drums148 (Mar 17, 2007 6:17 pm)
#10 of 110 Geo Metro averages 33/41 mpg, cty/hwy [plekto] by joe131 Feb 24, 2007 (11:02 am)
Replying to: plekto (Feb 24, 2007 10:48 am) Take a look at 1000+ messages on the Geo Metro board. The 1 liter motor cars only very rarely get anywhere near 50-55 mpg on the highway in actual use. Most owners there average 33 city and 41 highway. A tiny 2 seater Smart with little luggage space is just a toy to most US drivers. It may have some novelty appeal, but as a car to own and drive every day, it's gonna flop unless it can be sold a lot cheaper. Replies to this message: snakeweasel (Feb 27, 2007 6:57 pm) joe131 (Feb 28, 2007 11:24 am) snakeweasel (Feb 28, 2007 6:38 pm) and 18 more...
#11 of 110 Nah... by plekto Feb 24, 2007 (1:14 pm)
Again, it has all of the safety goodies found on a C-class. It has leather as an option. The interior looks very upscale as well. It's going to be marketed as a half-sized(and cost) C-class. It'll sell like crazy. And they did increase the trunk space enough to fit a single large suitcase. It's about the same size as most roadsters or the Mini. Small, but useable. I suspect that they will make some sort of flip-down feature for the passenger seat. That would allow a nice flat cargo area. Plus, it's RWD - lol. And 40mpg average is just fine with me