Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks Smart Car Smart Fortwo
491 messages, Last post on Oct 07, 2009 at 6:46 AM
You are in the Smart Car Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
 have been driving them since 2002 and did the early testing and review, first ones used gas motors till change to diesel, use it as my work car i drive 49km to the office for 1.10 per day and share my parking spot with two motor bike to cover the parking cost, they can be driving quite spirited and have lots of updates. the next one is the dual pipes and heat shield,and driving/fog lights. my car is silver red cabrio it a good second car as you can get your shopping done and run your errands around town. on nice days open the top and put on some tunes and enjoy the ride.
|
|
|
SmartUSA will begin selling their tiny two-seater here in a few months. It will be interesting. My only problem with the car is that it has two seats, a 3-cylinder 70 hp engine, and weighs 1,800 lbs., yet it only gets 33 mpg city / 40 hwy. The old Geo Metro 3-cyl. did better than that, and Toyota, Honda and Kia all have heavier, 4 door, 4 cyl. cars with 100+ hp that equal the Smart's mpg numbers. Here's the link to the Smart's "first drive" review: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=123595/pageNumber=1#1- |
|
|
Replying to: 1stpik (Nov 23, 2007 9:20 am) Going by the laughably pitiful 2008 EPA standards: the 1989 Metro got 38/45 stick and 32/36 auto; the 2008 Yaris gets 29/36 stick and 29/35 auto; the 2008 Fit gets 28/34 stick, 27/34 auto, and 27/33 CVT; the 2008 Rio gets 27/32 stick and 25/35 auto. |
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Nov 23, 2007 9:48 am) PS The only Smart car worth a hoot is the diesel that gets 70+ MPG. Of course we won't get them here. You have to move to Canada.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 23, 2007 10:31 am) Good call. The gen2 CRX had the same full wishbone suspension as the 1988 Civic and was about 200 pounds lighter. |
|
|
|
|
I think the Smart Car is off to a good start, the safety cage and airbags, and the suspension is reported as quite good. But - and this is supposed to be the point of the car - for those of us who know cars (and the above posters have put it quite well already with lots of data points) the MPG stinks!!!!! It completely stinks for what could happen for a car like this. Don't get me wrong - I'm extremely excited by this car and it has huge potential. But its not there yet. Whomever is running Smart and/or the head engineers on the project - to be very clear - YOU'VE GOT TO GET ANOTHER 10 - 20 MPG OUT OF IT!!!! (And really more on the 20 side.) Then you've got an incredible car with incredible potential in America and overseas. If it is at 33 now, frankly for what it does I don't even think 43 is sufficient - although 43 would have been a great first model. I hear the diesel is more than 2X for mpg over gas. That is great, and you should be able to sell that here by 2010 at the latest, right? Also, it would be fun to have the diesel engine be even smaller and make it a diesel hybrid? So - look - here is how the cards play out: Shape/Outer Appearance: Great Suspension: Very good for size Safety: First rate for size - and that is important!!! Overall: Awesome! Efficiency: Non-diesels need a lot of work Transmission: Some improvements possible here If you can bring better MPG in gas version and keep pushing the 'safety for size' issue - become known as the safest in size range, really push that on engineering and marketing side, then we've got a real hit here. Are the Mercedes engineers working on the Smart at all, or do they have their own engineers? I ask because some technology for high efficiency is extremely high-tech - take a look at the mileage numbers for the BMW 1 series with small engines. That is an example of a huge success and an engineering marvel. I don't know if the Smart engineers are up to that kind of stuff (I'm not trying to be mean - there is a *lot* of technology on the BMW 1) but at least use their final numbers as a goal. A low-weight hybrid implementation would be harder on the Smart than people think, but if implemented correctly, could really become something.
|
|
|
Replying to: lightminer (Nov 26, 2007 1:59 pm) 1. The fortwo is being judged by new-for-2008 mileage standards. All 2007 and prior models would post better numbers. Heck, on paper, my 2007 Honda Civic gets noticeably better mileage than the 'new' 2008 Honda Civic. 2. I don't believe the 33/40 numbers quoted are actual numbers from any official EPA tests. I've only seen 33/40 quoted from smart company officials as their estimate of what it will achieve when it is tested. Could it be that they are underpromising so they can overdeliver when the real results are released? Perhaps not, but it's a thought. Lastly, I wonder how much the transmission plays into these economy numbers and the 'tuning' that has taken place for the US market. 0-60 times seem to be slightly different from Euro-spec cars, so I wonder if we are experiencing some economy tradeoffs for slightly better performance? A six speed transmission for better interstate gearing would probably improve the highway numbers. And, as I said on the survey at the smart Roadshow event, BRING THE DIESEL!!! |
|
|
Replying to: lightminer (Nov 26, 2007 1:59 pm) 1. If you shrunk an '08 Civic Coupe proportionally and decreased it's engine displacement to 1.0L from 1.8L, it would weigh 1538 lbs. That's not a far cry from an '08 smart passion coupe. 2. If you shrunk an '08 Civic Coupe proportionally and decreased it's engine displacement to 1.0L from 1.8L, it would have 77 hp. Again, not far from an '08 smart. I do hope for better mileage, but it appears that when you decrease the weight of the car and displacement of the engine (all other factors being equal: using the same EPA standards, emissions requirements, etc.) we can't expect miracles with fuel economy. So, when compared to an '08 Civic Coupe, if the actual EPA numbers do turn out to be 33/40, an '08 fortwo's fuel economy is comparable with the same model year Civic given it's weight and engine displacement. I'm only talking fuel economy here, not any other attribute before anyone gets up in arms! Of course, the new ratings for the Civic Coupe put it at 36 MPG highway (down from 40) and I routinely average 37 or better in mixed driving in my '07 Civic Coupe (about 50% highway). So, I could probably do better than 40 in a fortwo, if that's what it gets rated. |
|
|
Replying to: lightminer (Nov 26, 2007 1:59 pm) Edit: the official Euro numbers work out to 48 mpg combined.
|
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Nov 27, 2007 7:28 am) The biggest problem with the smart will not be its gas mileage, but rather its quirky automatic clutch manual transmission. Its operation, whether in auto mode or with paddle shifters, is slow and less than smooth. The car would be better with either a CVT or a conventional manual (or dual clutch auto manual like VW's). As it is now, it makes for very leisurely acceleration. Until that is remedied, the diesel would just be too darn slow for most US drivers.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Smart Car Smart Fortwo
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 smart fortwo
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
