What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Mr_Shiftright

But what's more secure than the new subcompacts, with 6-way front and side air bags, stability control and good crash test ratings? I think it's just irrational fear--there's little basis to suggest that you are in fact any more "safe" in a big SUV, in the actual real world, the way accidents pan out (rollovers, single car wrecks, hit by train, fall asleep at the wheel, T-boned by a drunk).

Our intuition might suggest we are safer---"hmmm....big rock hits small rock" but our intuition is often quite wrong "hmmm....rock sinks in water, feather floats----SO-----heavy things sink in water, light things float!" (Tell that to the USS Nimitz).

Nobody's "safe" out there really. You the driver is your best safety device.

Whenever I see a car on its crushed roof on deadly HWY 17, you know what type it is...it sure isn't a MINI.

ateixeira

I think the Outback and PT Cruiser qualify as MPVs, not as trucks. They're just thrown in the same category as trucks.

But let's go back to the original law, which was intended to give fleet/work trucks a break. It was never intended to give a break for harry homeowner to buy a Suburban for personal use.

So basically every personally owned truck out there is exploiting this loophole. Not just the PT Cruiser.

The law should be re-written so that it benefits work fleets exclusively, as it was intended to do in the first place.

Why should trucks get special treatment? Being exempt from the same fuel economy, safety, and emissions standards..it's absurd.

ateixeira

Both horrible ideas.

BMW should not by selling a cheap/small car.

Mini should not be selling a large/expensive SUV.

Have BMW build an X1 SUV instead. Let Mini stick to what they do well - small cars.

british_rover

I don't have the stats with me anymore as I wrote the paper years ago but...

The majority of fatal accidents are single car accidents. Someone runs off the road and hits a tree, flips the car, hits some other kind of unmovable object. In those cases mass works against you and a lighter vehicle would be better.

tiff_c

But what's more secure than the new subcompacts, with 6-way front and side air bags, stability control and good crash test ratings? I think it's just irrational fear--there's little basis to suggest that you are in fact any more "safe" in a big SUV, in the actual real world, the way accidents pan out (rollovers, single car wrecks, hit by train, fall asleep at the wheel, T-boned by a drunk).

Well I think the idea comes from folks like my Dad who have always believed bigger is better and big cars are far safer than small ones. No one on Earth could convince him he's wrong, no amount of proof, no data no nothing. He's seen big accidents and small ones and he always wants to be in the bigger safer car. He's never been in an accident ever and of course he's not alone. Many parents teach their kids bigger cars are safer. Other forums on here you see the parents buying their unskilled kid a huge SUV to protect their offspring. Sure must be nice. I had a beat up old Buick that I paid $500 for and gas was 50 cents a gallon back then. I didn't buy it because it was safe, i bought it because all I had was $500 which I had to earn and then put it on the road with my own money!
Oh it was safe enough, but I also had a Buick Opel like a 1970 or something it was crap but cost me like $400. I bought it because it was in pretty good shape and was only $400. Not big or small but economically viable. This is no longer an issue for the spoiled kids of today because if they had to buy their own cars and pay for everything they'd be buying subcompacts and fuel efficient cars because they have to pay for it.
The older generation teaches the bigger car = safer car mentality and that's not going to change. I told my kids to buy whatever car they could afford, since they were going to pay for it themselves.

i'm sure MINI's get totaled as do all vehicles that are driven to aggressively for conditions, SUV's Trucks, Semi's and Yugo's and Buicks and Ferrari's etc...
Airbag costs are crazy and will likely total a vehicle out in the future due to the cost, but it's safer, no doubt.
Maybe mandatory racing school should be taught to everyone so they really know how to drive. :shades:

Although given your circumstances I'd rather be on the Nimitz if it hits a car or an SUV. :P

boaz47

as was posted earlier the NHTSA has reported that Sub compact sales have increased by 3 percent and traffic deaths in that catagory. have increased by 10 percent. All other traffic fatalities except motorcycles have been going down. Something has to explain how this is happening. Other wise if indeed SUV sales are down, and Truck sales are down then the reason for increased deaths isn't large trucks.

ateixeira

Sadly, you reminded me, but a friend was riding his Ducati when a car pulled out in front of him... :sick:

He broke his elbow in 13 places and also fractured his hip.

He'll survive but has months of recovery in his future.

Fortunately he was wearing his helmet and full leathers, plus he was able to slow down to ease the blow.

I'm trying to pay a visit but I wouldn't be surprised if he's not in the mood for visitors.

Mr_Shiftright

Without knowing what they hit, the stats are meaningless. Not enough info to make a conclusion, only a correlation.

boaz47

yes, but the stats are there and they have been going down for a while now. With the raw numbers alone plus your natural inclination you have to know that something is causing small car injuries and deaths to rise when mid sized car and full sized trucks are decreasing. Now I will admit it could be more kids are driving small cars and with their track record they could account for the accident all by themselves. But accidents happen even to larger cars and still the death and injury rate is dropping.

In defense of small cars someone may chose to ignore the increased injury and death rate that is far in excess of the increase in purchases but if these same statistics were attached to a SUV someone would draw a correlation.

oregonboy

Without more info, it's largely speculation, so I'll play the game and speculate.

Attempting to link death rates to small car sales is a second-best comparison (maybe third or fourth). If there is a correlation, it would be with miles traveled. Of course there are many other variables like driver demographics and geographic distribution. But here's my postulation:

Because of the recent run-up in fuel prices, miles driven per sub-compact car has increased disproportionately relative to cars in general. In fact, it is logical to assume that with higher fuel prices, the larger the vehicle, the greater the likelihood that average miles driven would decrease.

High fuel cost => small vehicles more miles driven, big vehicles fewer miles driven
More miles driven directly proportional to more accidents
QED: higher fuel cost => relative increase in small vehicle accidents

There you go. I have neatly explained your mystery stats with absolutely no supporting facts. TAZZ-ZAH!!! :P

james

boaz47

Well there you go. Maybe you have also proved why is more dangerous to drive a small car farther. However the same thing happened after the fuel scare in the 70s. The same thing happened when CAFE caused the big three to start making smaller lighter cars.

Between you and me if I was ever in an accident between a Fit and a Suburban I would rather be in the Suburban with no special circumstances. There are just some laws of Physics that are hard to ignore. Yes, in single accident it more than likely doesn't make a big difference and maybe a heavy truck would even suffer more damage. But knowing a Fit would hit my door with his windshield in a side impact just feels safer than a Truck hitting the Fit with a bumper in the door handle.

Shifty, after long thought about what you posted about brush guards I still believe I will be adding a steel reinforced brush guard to my next truck. I already will have a large box built step bumper and tow package in the back but I that some extra body armor is needed in the front.

colloquor

I should scan the front page of our local paper from this past Saturday. We had relatively minor freezing rain and ice throughout parts of Illinois, and the front page of this newspaper included 4 photos of vehicular accidents on local highways. ALL of the photos were of SUV's upside down in the median of 3 separate freeways. Amazing . . . I don't know if this was a realistic sample, or the photographer had a bone to pick with SUVs.

texases

I spent 12 years in Anchorage, and the first snow always put a lot of cars in the ditch. The most common? 4wd pickups! (this was pre-suv boom).

boaz47

But who else besides a 4WD would go out in that weather?

andre1969

When I lived in Colorado, I took my '53 Chrysler shop car (made into a pickup truck) to the same spots as the Jeeps. No we didn't ford streams or boulder-hop but we got to 99% of the places they did


Hell, by today's standards, a 1953 Chrysler probably IS an SUV! Sits high off the ground, with an upright seating position. And sometimes, when you go off-roading, don't those tall, skinny bias ply tires actually work in your favor?

My Granddad's first "pickup truck" was similar...a 1940 or so Plymouth with the back half removed and a homemade bed built on.

stever

I drove my Tercel around all the time in Anchorage. Including on first snow days. :shades:

I didn't have to drive the 4 lane and it seemed that most of the rollovers were on the highway. That excessive speed for conditions thing. Plenty of sedans drove the highway with the SUVs though, and they would just tend to just plow into a snowbank when they spun out.

texases

But who else besides a 4WD would go out in that weather?

No choice, everyone. My GTI never got stuck in 12 years, except once (high centered).

andre1969

No choice, everyone. My GTI never got stuck in 12 years, except once (high centered).

Yup, same here, and I've never owned a 4wd vehicle in my life. I think what might happen though is that people with 4wd vehicles get cocky, thinking they're indestructible, so they get up to higher speeds so that when they do wipe out, it's much more catastrophic.

There's no limit to how dumbed-down the human species can get. Make the vehicles more capable, and we just keep finding ways to turn that around. I remember back in late 1999, a friend of mine called me during a snow storm. He had bought a 1995 Grand Marquis that summer, and this was his first time driving it in the snow, and it was acting funny. He wanted me to ride along with him and see if I could diagnose it. Well, it turns out this car had ABS, and perhaps traction control, too. And what he was doing is driving much faster than he should have been doing, practically sending the ABS into mental overload trying to keep him from wiping out! Before the Grand Marquis he'd had a 1977 Cordoba, a 1978 Newport, and a 1982 Cutlass Supreme sedan...cars that aren't exactly known for their prowess in snowy weather, but cars that, as long as you behave yourself, shouldn't get you in too much trouble. This was the first time he'd experienced ABS. And basically, since the car wasn't losing control (yet) he just pushed it harder.

In late 2003, he got that same car stuck in the snow in my yard. And damned if, a couple years later he didn't do it again with his '04 Crown Vic...again, with ABS and traction control. Instead of improving the cars, they need to improve the nut behind the wheel!

ttai

Sarcasm Warning.

If you can afford to drive around in a Ford Expedition because you and your gallon of milk feel safer, so be it. And if you ram into some poor
schmo and his kid who can only afford a Ford Focus and you kill them
with your tank, too bad for them. That's what they get for being poor.
The problem with big battle tanks on the road is the idiot behind
the wheel that can barely walk and chew gum. Driving anything bigger
than a Honda CRV should require a defensive driving course. Maybe
small car deaths are due to being run over by idiots in land yachts rather than them being inherently unsafe. You can turn the
argument around and say big SUV's are dangerous.

ttai

I worked in the Norwegian parts of Europe. Those people
are amazing in the snow with their little sub-compacts. It's
amazing Americans think their fat, lumbering SUV is somehow
better on the snow than a lighter, smaller car. I guess we can
convince ourselves of anything if we want it badly enough.

stever

so that when they do wipe out, it's much more catastrophic

I think part of it is that the SUVs and the big 4x4 trucks tend to trip more and roll when they spin out on the snow. Minivans tend to be a few inches lower to the ground so maybe that helps them mostly stay upright.

Just speculating, since there's no snow here to go play in, darn it.

texases

There was a burglar in Anchorage that was known as the 'Subaru thief', for obvious reasons - he used the awd+studded tires to evade capture.

Mr_Shiftright

yeah but you could hear him a mile away :P

texases

Maybe like this?
"Camo seat covers come with car"

Mr_Shiftright

I never understood why anyone who was wearing cammo in an urban or industrial environment thought that they were hiding. :P

boaz47

Maybe if your camo was concrete colored and the breaks in it looked like windows?

The reason some people like 4x4 is because it is easier to use. You don't need chains most times, snow tires will do. You don't even need studs and the people at the chain check will simply wave you through. But like Andre said it most often encourages people to take more chances.

I live in the mountains and have had AWD, RWD, FWD and 4x4 and at least for the mountains 4x4 works best. You will notice that the CHP, Cal Trans, Edison, and even the Fire Department tends to send their 4X4 equipment out on the days it snows. AWD might be the second best but as has been mentioned ground clearance is the bigger factor.

I have many friends from the mid west that assure me with snow tires they can drive on snow and ice with a RWD as well as any 4x4. Might work where it is flat but they can't get up my street even with Chains.

But I will admit I have seen sub compact AWD Justys on snow covered roads where I wouldn't have expected them. And my second best snow car was a Subaru that I bought shortly after I moved up here. Still in the snow and ice you are simply a target for all the bigger cars piloted by the drivers Andre described.

ateixeira

Nothing wrong with a characteristic engine sound.

I mean, you can't tell a Honda V6 from a Ford V6 nowadays.

oregonboy

I'll bet that you could if you wound them up to 6000 RPM.

james

dromedarius

We just got our first snow of the season last week and I was reminded of my mortality when I got fly-bys in my Chevy Prizm by consecutive Chevy Tahoes. We had 70 some accidents in town that night but thank goodness none of my family or friends were in any of them. God have mercy on the person who gets in the way of those crazy people!

I've driven on snow since I got my driver's license, going on 17 years, and I'm convinced the ever larger vehicles are the LAST thing our roads need. If you use the logic a lot of big vehicle purchasers use, it's "all about safety", (like someone else pointed out, at the expense of the poor), we'd all drive big rigs. Our little CR-V gets us around just fine in the nasty weather we get in these parts, which is as bad as any in the country, and while my little Prizm isn't exactly fun to drive on the worst days, it does it's job 350+ days out of the year.

I've heard very few good justifications of people owning large vehicles. "I hunt" (or "I have two kids") is not good enough, since no one hunts alone and it seems like EVERY member of the group has a Suburban for that one reason when they could all carpool with one guy, which is what they end up doing anyway! My personal opinion is the reason they have it is as a status symbol to sit beside their other new vehicle, both of which are parked with the new boat and new motorcycle inside the soon to be repossessed new house.

:P

boaz47

The only person we need to justify our decission on vehicles to is ourselves. What can we afford without having to give up the house. We all are allowed personal opinions and yours about why people buy 4x4s may seem be valid to you. I have had a boat, several motorcycles and sometimes I have had 4x4s and sometimes not. But in most cases people just buy what they want at the time. I don't believe it is a status thing however. Casting the status card at truck and SUV drivers doesn't ring any more true than, "I believe in the poor humble conservitive life where you only buy just the basic needs", Eboneezer Scrooge ethics. Absolutely nothing wrong with a Prism and a CR-V. But there is no added virtue to that choice over a Tahoe that you have worked hard for and can afford.

With no low range and no more ground clearance than your CR-V or Prism has you simply can't get as far down the road in the snow as I can in my lifted 4X4. I just get stuck farther from help than you do.

nippononly

too far down the road to being the "AWD: Pros and Cons" discussion, I thought I would toss this in:

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/FREE/71204011/-1/new- sletter01

Seems they have sold out of a whole year's worth of Smart cars before they have even imported a single one!

boaz47

Well then we shall see how the smart survives once it gets here. I will be very interested in looking at Smart sales two years after it gets here.

bumpy

Looks like I won't be getting mine before the end of next year. Maybe the Bluetec version will be ready by then?

dromedarius

That's crazy talk! If everyone shifted to smaller vehicles we would be sending less money to our enemies who are working so hard to destroy our way of life (which includes you buying things you don't need), so you bet your transfer case there is something virtuous to going small! And as far as it being a status thing, I wish I had two cents, that's right, just two cents, for every time I've heard someone say they wouldn't be caught dead in a minivan, even though it is the most practical, efficient and safe way to move a large family from point A to point B.

lilengineerboy

I wish I had two cents, that's right, just two cents, for every time I've heard someone say they wouldn't be caught dead in a minivan, even though it is the most practical, efficient and safe way to move a large family from point A to point B.

A mini-van is good for carrying people or cargo, but not both. It also depends how many people and how big they are. The payload of an Odyssey is 1350; fine for 2 adults and a bunch of kids, but not optimal for 7 adults. The Dodge Sprinter (Diesel) can tote 5770 lbs, which should be more than ample for 9 adults and their baggage. It also gets about the same mileage as the Odyssey and costs are more comparably than one would think.

So with little cost penalty, and with little mpg penalty (and the ability to run home-grown fuels, eliminating the dependence on foreign oil) you can have that much more capability. Of course, I wouldn't be such a fan of driving a full size van every day, but that would address you argument for smaller vehicles related to minivans.

dromedarius

No argument here! I think the Sprinter is a great vehicle! If some people would trade in their Suburbans and Excursions and Expeditions for a practical van, we'd all be better off. Granted, we have the right to drive what we want (I just keep hearing Eric Cartman screaming "I don't care! I can do what I WANT!" in my head when people say that) but I believe we have a responsibility to do what is best for the whole as well. Call it applying John Nash's economic theory to automobiles.

andre1969

I think the Sprinter is a great vehicle! If some people would trade in their Suburbans and Excursions and Expeditions for a practical van, we'd all be better off.

Not necessarily. If you're talking about REAL vans, and not minivans, well a van is just as heavy, and it going to hit just as hard, as a truck-based SUV. And isn't a Sprinter actually more of a medium-duty truck? As tall as it is, it looks like it would be easy to flip, but I guess it's possible that it doesn't have that high of a center of gravity. Still, it's going to create even more of a visual roadblock for other motorists, especially those in cars, than the Expeditions and Suburbans already do.

lilengineerboy

The problem is the gap between perceived and actual needs. I keep thinking that my folks had 3 kids in the back of a k-car, so the Legacy should be plenty big...and it is, until you try to put more than one car seat and more than 2 adults in it, or a baby and a dog and required paraphernalia for a road trip, etc.
I put a cargo box on the Yakima rack on the Subie to hold the stroller,pack-n-play (combination porta-crib and play-pen to those of you that haven't had a baby in the last few years), bouncy seat,etc and got 24 mpg, down from 30 (although I was probably going faster too...and on winter gas,etc). The thing is, I got home, took the box and the bars off, and mileage is back up. I have the cargo capacity when I need it, but I don't have to pay for it when I don't.
I think for my family, that vehicle is the perfect mix of utility, practicality, safety, and fun to drive-ness (although I wish we had gotten the fancier model, but oh well). My friends with the xB feel the same way about their vehicle, and get similar mileage (but do more in-town driving).

Mr_Shiftright

RE: SMART--Those aren't sales or orders, those are refundable deposits.

Also some ominous notes in that story:

that Smart "should be" profitable for the first time at the end of 2008.

that Daimler is looking to test an EV Smart in American cities (suggesting that the gas car is not delivering the expected economy?)

In 10 years, in 37 countries, they've sold 770,000 Smarts. Do the math. That's an average of 2,000 cars a year in each country.

that in the entire US there will be 75 dealers. Service and repairs anyone?

lilengineerboy

Not necessarily. If you're talking about REAL vans, and not minivans, well a van is just as heavy, and it going to hit just as hard, as a truck-based SUV. And isn't a Sprinter actually more of a medium-duty truck?

A medium duty truck that gets 25 mpg and can run on bio-diesel.

As tall as it is, it looks like it would be easy to flip, but I guess it's possible that it doesn't have that high of a center of gravity.

This is a big issue with any high profile vehicle. I remember my friend flipping an 80s Toyota mini-van on the way to school, and my mom's friend flipping a Vanagon. The 15 passenger vans are especially dangerous because 3000 lbs of people sitting high up effectively raises the center of gravity. Most of these vehicles now have pretty advanced stability control programs.

I don't think a Sprinter blocks my Accord's view any more than an Explorer or Expedition. Actually, because its relatively narrow, I can usually see around them.

Mr_Shiftright

It's the high center of gravity coupled with today's amazing tire technology. Nowadays, when you swerve, those tires stayed glued to the road----consequence? FLIP!!!

bumpy

The motivation for the electric fortwo is zero emissions, not improved mileage. Consider the increasing clamor in Europe over global warming, CO2 taxes, etc.

2,000 a year in 37 countries is 74,000 a year. Not exactly a horrible figure.

How is 75 dealers a bad number? Mini has 80 dealers in the US, and those cars are somehow sold and serviced.

andre1969

A medium duty truck that gets 25 mpg and can run on bio-diesel.

Oh yeah, I'm not denying that there's a lot of good potential there. Still, I think if we got the soccer Moms and the trophy wives and men with a "mine's not big enough" complex out of their Expeditions and Suburbans and into Sprinters, it would do more harm than good. They'd find ways to flip them, regardless of how good the stability control is. And when they get into crashes with smaller vehicles, the disparity could very well be even greater than it would have been with a Burb or Expedition. Now an Excursion basically WAS a medium duty truck, so there probably wouldn't be much difference there.

Oh well, at least it would be harder to overload a Sprinter. I think the base payload capacity of an Expedition or Suburban is only about 1300 pounds.

It's a shame that Chrysler hasn't figured out how to get the Sprinter's engine into vehicles like the Ram, Durango, and Dakota.

oregonboy

I have often wondered how many rollovers have been caused by wide, low-profile automotive tires that have been installed on PUs and SUVs to achieve the "look". :surprise: :sick:

james

lilengineerboy

And when they get into crashes with smaller vehicles, the disparity could very well be even greater than it would have been with a Burb or Expedition.

A couple of years ago we were rear ended while stopped at a light. A Trailblazer hit a full size Chevy van and that van got pushed into us. The SUV's front bumper was no where near the hight of the van's bumper, so it took out the whole back of the van. The van's front bumper was exactly the same height as our rear bumper...we got a new vinyl bumper cover. That one of the reasons Ford started using "cattle catcher" sub-frames under the "bumpers" of the SUVs. I personally think because vans are lower, they are easier to get in and out of, and the siding doors make it easier to load and unload (either kids or cargo) than clunky swinging doors.

I think the base payload capacity of an Expedition or Suburban is only about 1300 pounds.

Yeah not so much utility for your MPG.

It's a shame that Chrysler hasn't figured out how to get the Sprinter's engine into vehicles like the Ram, Durango, and Dakota.

I think MBZ won't let them. The Liberty CRD engine could also be used. I think the CRD or the MBZ one is in the 300c in Europe already.

Mr_Shiftright

Lack of dealers is a sore point with MINI owners as well.

Not a horrible figure, but horrible enough to lose money since the Smart was introduced. It's NEVER MADE MONEY!

Think about that.

this is SMART'S last waltz. Either they make a go, or they are folding, you can count on it.

tiff_c

How is 75 dealers a bad number? Mini has 80 dealers in the US, and those cars are somehow sold and serviced.

Trust me it's not fun if you don't live relatively close to one. This has put me off on buying a MINI and they seem to like having very few car dealerships. Probably has to do with their limited product line. They really need an AWD Mini, a Diesel Mini and a 4 door Mini or something to boost up the coupe and the convertible and the awful Clubman which has the worst colors a silver, black or body colored roof. Awful!

Anyway Smart will be tough to fix. My guess is even if the coupe dies out they will sell a ton of the convertibles. A cheap 2 door convertible with good economy will sell it for sure. I'd consider one if I had a local dealer and they had a real manual tranny hooked up to a diesel engine. too many hills for it to be practical and a Smart is just horrible in the snow even with snow tires. I've seen the Video it's too short and light for the snow. Pity.

Mr_Shiftright

SMART needs to get EVs and diesels into the line up ASAP, although EVs are probably a stretch for a company that is reluctant to invest more money in a lagging product.

But the diesel Smart is certainly possible and that might turn things around. Right now, a SMART has zero advantages over competitors, but if a diesel SMART could pump out 50-75 mpg, that would encourage sales---albeit again to a limited audience.

But I bet diesel SMARTS could turn a modest profit in the USA.

One problem for SMART, and all small car makers, is the ugly FACT.

The UF is:

The compact, subcompact, micro-car market is brutally competitive and not very profitable per unit. It only works if you either a) sell boatloads, like Toyota, or b) sell them for a lot of $$$, like MINI.

bumpy

Not a horrible figure, but horrible enough to lose money since the Smart was introduced. It's NEVER MADE MONEY!

They never made money because they kept spending it on product that didn't pan out: the Roadster, the forfour, and the SUV thing that never got made. Now, they've refocused on their core product, sourced an existing drivetrain for it, and opened up a large new market. If they can't make any money now, they are done.

tiff_c

SMART needs to get EVs and diesels into the line up ASAP, although EVs are probably a stretch for a company that is reluctant to invest more money in a lagging product.

Yes I agree 100% diesels now and far better economy and a real manual at least as an option. Did you see the Video on YouTube with a Smart with an engine from a Hayabusa in it. Now that was HP overload!
Smart is about economy and it's not that far off from a Corolla or a Yaris and yeah it's cheaper but not by much.

Also the Smart is awful in the snow! So snowbelt states it's as useful as a motorcycle even with snow tires!
I'm looking for the link.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/winter/traction2006.htm
I'll repost the section from it just in case
Begin
Our smart fortwo had all the bells and whistles: traction control, stability control, ABS, and winter tires. But none of it helped much. The smart's rear wheel drive configuration (even though the engine is over the driven wheels) coupled with its super-short wheelbase made this vehicle a major challenge on the slippery surfaces used for our exercises.
smart fortwo. Click image to enlarge
Acceleration from a standstill or occasionally when moving was difficult. When cornering on icy surfaces, the smart wanted to rotate on its axis. Even when stopping the smart wanted to rotate, although it did stop, ah-hem, smartly. Although everybody wanted to drive the smart, the experience didn't meet expectations.
END

Smart has possibilities but the car needs some improvements.