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

#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
#12 of 110 mass by blue330xi Feb 24, 2007 (6:15 pm)
It dosen't have the mass of a C-class or the same length crumple zone. While you may think that is a +, if you are struck by a 6000lb SUV you will find the C-class is a much better place to be. This car may be as safe if you say run into a wall at 40mph, but if you get plowed by an SUV or Pickup the mass difference is just to huge. I have seen this first hand. I have seen a escalade nearly plow over a mini cooper, and that was only a 20mph or so impact. It happened on paradise ave as the mini was at a stop light ready to turn toward the strip (I live in vegas). I was in the next lane waiting. The mini driver ended up going to the hospital but seemed in good shape except for a broken lower lip but the entire rear end of his car was smashed over by the front bumper of the escalade. The escalade didnt look that damaged, he probably just needed a new bumper. The taxi in front of the mini was not that bad off either except a dented rear bumper. As a comparison my brother was rear ended by a cement truck while in his Jeep Grand Cherokee. While the rear bumper was damaged, he came out allright and the car only needed about $1500 (of the truck drivers insurance money) to be repaired. Replies to this message: snakeweasel (Feb 27, 2007 7:00 pm)
#13 of 110 mass 2 by blue330xi Feb 24, 2007 (6:27 pm)
Another way to think about it is worst case possible accident. If you were on the freeway say in the left lane between the cement guard rail and a semi and the semi veers into you, would you rather be in something like a land cruiser or escalade, or would you rather be in a smart? The larger vehicle will deflect less and will be less likely to get crushed under the wheels of the semi trailer. Im not saying you wont get killed still, just that I would rather have the added mass of the SUV or large car in a senario like that. Some motorcycles actually have airbags also...that does not mean you want to wreck in one more then you would a car.
#14 of 110 Yeah... by plekto Feb 24, 2007 (8:17 pm)
And lots of people ride motorcycles. And people get hit by semis, too. The reality is that no car will protect you all of the time unless you drive something like a Uimog or military transport. The big vs small car in a crash thing won't work here. If it's as safe as a Mini, it'll be just fine. As for the crumple zone, it's not a lot different than say, a MR2 or Fit. The crumple zone on a Fit is maybe a foot longer, but that's all engine and no real protection(on the contrary, they have to make it so the engine doesn't enter the passenger space as much as anything else. The Smart lengthened the bumpers a bit as well - so you get a little less than two feet of 100% dedicated crumple space. Not great, but not bad, either. Oh - and the crash tests they've done show that while it evaporates in the front and rear, the main safety cell stays intact. Lastly, it has airbags. The airbags are not supplimental in this car, but essentially required - so that it all works together in a crash about as well as a typical midsize sedan without airbags did. Of course, after a crash, the entire car is toast, since it just self-destructed like a Formula-1 racecar(and probably just as spectacularly) so always carrying full coverage is a noted expense. Get in an accident? Hop in a replacement. Don't bother fixing it.
#15 of 110 4two by cxvargas Feb 25, 2007 (8:53 am)
I'm stationed here in Europe and I see smarts everywhere I go and with so many large commercial vehicles crowding the roads I don't believe the smart is more or less safe than a Ford Fiesta or a Citroen C1. I would buy one but I find them a little bit over price. Also, with the MB A-class over here in Europe maybe DCX should consider selling that model in the States as a Smart. I would prefer that if the price is right.