Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Smart Fortwo
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
anyone think the 70 mi is too far to get to a dealer?
they said you only have to change the oil once a year? odd?
how do you get at the engine and for example check the oil?
i'm still having a problem with the no spare tire issue. bad luck with tires recently!
I live 64 miles from my dealer. In the 10 months/10,000 miles I've owned my smart I've had no problems whatsoever and no need to return to the dealer. Consumer Reports rates the smart as one of the "Most Reliable." My dealership reports in the 13 months they've been a dealer they've performed NO MAJOR REPAIRS. Oil change is 12/months/10,000 miles (whichever occurs first). It's VERY EASY to change the oil and filter and you don't have to go to a dealer. You don't even need to jack up the car. Anybody whoi changes oil can do it. Engine is accessed via a hatch under the truck floor. Vehicle does have an air compressor and tire sealant to use in the event of a flat. Tires are not generally a problem. For more info I suggest the following Web sites:
www.smartusainsider.com
www.451s.com
Enjoy
I would add to your list of sites though. My favorite hangout is
www.smartcarofamerica.com
Better than all the rest, IMO.
smarts are high profile vehicles, taller than the average sedan. And, at around 1800 pounds, not all that massive. Yes, they do get blown around quite noticeably by crosswinds. But, I've never been blown out of my lane.
If you take a test drive looking for a "stability problem," you'll probably find one. If you talk with most everyone who's driven a smart for more than 2,500 miles/3 months, you'll probable find there's "no problem."
Enjoy
Dennis
How did you manage to get a Euro Smart, register it, insure it and get it serviced in the USA? I've had no luck at all trying to get the Euro Smart TDI, even though it's sold in Canada!, never mind obtaining the car you got.
I'm puzzled at the Mitsu-equipped Smart's lousy mileage. The Metro got 45-50 mpg with the same engine more than 15 years ago! I pretty much lost interest in the Smart when they put the Mitsubishi in the US version and announced that low 40 mpg. Also, they STILL don't import the 800cc Diesel to America!? WHY NOT?
I've always wondered why German car companies have such bad marketing techniques. Asking so many willing American customers to wait 10 years just to get what was once a decent car (but no longer is) is truly insane. The first tiny Toyota turbo-diesel that comes to these shores gets my money.
Your reply would be appreciated.
Herb
By the way, When I traded this car for an R-5 in 1976, the fellow who bought my R-16 (with 137,00 on the clock) as spare parts for HIS 1970 R-16 got back to me and said that the engine was so good, that he'd made his car the spare-parts donor instead. Apparently, toilet paper oil-filters do an engine a lot of long-term good in addition to greatly improving gas mileage.
Herb
All it took was a couple of trips on I95 to get me to sell my Smart (made a couple of bucks) and get a pre-owned Jetta TDI 2006 with all the bells and whistles for what I paid for the Smart. I have four doors, huge trunk, all the power options you can think of, and get a solid 38 mpg around town and 44 to 45 on the road. Best move I ever made.
:shades:
For example, on Pearl Harbor Day in 1971, I got rear-ended in my Renault 16 by a drunk driving a huge Buick. His car ended up being 3 feet shorter, mine got pushed in just 16" and was cheaply repaired. The drunk hit the steering wheel so hard, he bent it over at a 90-degree angle and lost all his front teeth. I ended up having a sore neck for a week. The seat and head-restraint did their jobs.
So, just keep buying all those over-priced pick-up trucks gussied up with cushy interiors and way too powerful engines for the suspensions to handle (I think it's unfair that Firetone tire had to pay a heavy price for poor SUV suspension design). Finally, insurance statistics reveal a very different picture than Marketing copy about SUV "safety" does: Rollover accidents with SUV's are far more common than with other vehicle types, and it's rollovers that produce the most fatalities. It that surprising? Think how high up an SUV's center of gravity is! Give me a small car with a low center of gravity any time, thank you!
Smart Fortwo
Sure it's cute, cool, and economical, but the Smart Fortwo isn't safe for everyone -- let alone inexperienced drivers. Because it's much smaller and lighter than most vehicles on the road, auto critics doubt it can hold its own in a serious crash. Many also note that strong gusts of wind can make controlling the Smart on the highway a difficult task. And while the IIHS rates it well in both frontal offset and side impact crash tests, NHTSA has issued a "safety concern" for its poor performance in side impact testing, in which "the driver door unlatched and opened." What's more, the Fortwo's debut was mangled last year when Smart issued a recall after an adhesive problem caused some drivers' windshields to fall out.
A Safer Alternative: For a ride that's just as quirky-looking, but performs better in crash tests and features loads of standard safety equipment, consider the MINI Cooper. It's a bit more expensive, but is probably a safer bet for a new driver."
http://clubsmartcar.com/index.php?showtopic=17626
And, while the "Safety Ratings" are excellent, the "real world" is the most important. I suggest that everyone check out the "Safe And Smart" website (http://www.safeandsmart.com) and read about the actual experiences from owners.
You can be quiet now.....
I wonder what the test would be with the Smart versus the Accord. I bet it would be ugly but easily survivable.
We all make our choices. Every situation has its drawbacks. Most accidents are not headon collisions, so people will draw their lines on vehicle size, mpg, footprint, and equipment in different places--based on probabilities, preferences, driving skill, needs, etc. Being in a smart is safer than being in a 2006 Aveo. Maybe all small cars and all cars without side airbags and stability control should be banned.
But on the other hand, so what? A certain type of car is no more likely to be banned than personal firearms, here in the US. This forum really is for owner discussion, not owner bashing. However, I doubt appealing to either reason or decorum will get these anti-smart crusaders to stop. Perhaps it is best to be amused by the behavior.
Thanks!
I wanted it in PINK but that would have cost me $1000 more on the sticker - which btw, no dealer will "haggle" over. The price is what you pay..period. I thought one dealer was gving me a line seeing as I was a woman but after visiting more than one dealer, I found this to be the case. Your only haggling room is in your trade-in allowance if you have one.
Just when you think you've seen everything, I was on the interstate last night. Saw a SMART CONVERTIBLE. Are you kidding me? They made this roller skate in a convertible?
Good news was it was firmly planted in the right lane. Bad news was it looked like it even struggled to keep up with traffic in the "slow lane".
It was NOT a car that I think I'd feel safe driving.....especially on the interstate. Even less so with part of its roof folded down. :surprise:
was NOT a car that I think I'd feel safe driving.....especially on the interstate.
It is a little slow in here but about the Smart car. Looks like oil/gas are on the way up again, and when that happens Smart Cars start looking better. They are made with cage construction and crumple zones, but I don't think that will help much if you collide with a transport truck or SUV.
I think their real value is as a 2nd or 3rd car for small runs around town.......but then how much are you going to save?
I wonder if the $4000 if you trade in your clunker will spur sales. I have a feeling that if you have an ancient clunker it won't put a new car within reach of buying :sick:
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
This was about a year ago before they started selling them.
On HWY 80 between Sacramento and San Francisco, we saw a big 18 wheelers advertising SMART cars. We passed it, and in front of it were 5 or 6 SMART cards doing over 60mph. My wife and I agreed that it's not a car we'd feel safe driving on a highway.
OT I wonder if that "road show" :P was responsible for any SMART sales
Unfortunately, the passengers seem to be a part of the crumple zone.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
No, actually, the passengers become the airbags
Really though, it seems the Smart Car does reasonably well in crash tests, better than you would expect;
This test shows a Smart Car going into a brick wall at 70 mph.
Smart Car
The Insurance Institute also found it did not too badly, though they do say a larger car will probably give you more protection;
Smart Car Crash
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Maybe it was just the angle it was filmed at but that wall sure looked like it was slanted quite a bit. Still impressive.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Impressive, but I still wouldn't like to be in it.
I don't think too many passengers would survive, it any car hit the wall dead on at 70mph.
Very few accidents are right on. When you see how much destruction there is in that clip, just imagine two cars coming together - both going 70 mph. That would be like hitting the wall at 140!
Impressive, but I still wouldn't like to be in it.
See all those parts in the passenger compartment that break and come loose. Imagine bones and muscles being torn apart. That little Smart car might be safer than a lot of bigger cars, especially ones from a few years ago without airbags and crumple zones.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
That would be equivalent to one car hitting a stationary item at 70 mph. If cars are different in mass and the other car is a larger mass the Smart car would end up being accelerated more and might even bounce backwards, giving a much larger change in velocity to its poor occupants.
A problem with comparing a fixed block at 45 degrees collision with one against another car is that the parts of the cars aren't going to mesh solidly against each other, so there's going to be more intrusion in places and less slowing. Hitting the solid concrete probably uses the design of the Smart car to its maximum to absorb the forces without extreme disintegration and intrusion occuring. A real life incident is more likely to give worse-looking results. Remember that the occupants only had the time it took for the car's left front to collapse approximately 30 inch to decelerate to zero forward velocity and the approximately 25 mph sideways velocity. You can calculate an average acceleration rate using the 70 mph initial speed. That means higher deceleration rates than in a larger vehicle with a longer crush zone and longer crush time; that's better on occupants generally.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Wow, I forgot I am dealing with Physics experts here. Although the Smart does well in crash tests, I guess what you are saying is, in the long run, it isn't going to matter much to the occupants any way.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Hi gregg,
In gg's defense, we were posting on another forum, but we were off topic. So all the posts got moved over here.
Compare the features, safety items and weights of those cars to today's cars. Back in 1993, you didn't have airbags, crumple zones, side door beams, electronic abs, skid control, et al. All those things add weight.
The problem is that my daily commute is 36 miles of city roads with speeds between 45-50 mph and 12 miles of Interstate with speeds of 70-75 mph. Outside of this I rarely go more than 5 miles out of my way and usually on just city streets to visit stores or the theater.
I'm not concerned about the city roads at all of course, but I just want to be sure the Smart ForTwo can handle the 12 miles a day (6 there and 6 back) of speeds around 70-75 mph. I really am not concerned about safety but rather about the car being able to perform well enough. This stretch of Interstate is in OKC and is actually pretty rural with more grass than concrete(I240 East of Sooner Rd if curious) I'm also not too concerned about a smooth ride.
I'd just like to know if someone with an 08 or 09 model can let me know if the car would handle this sort of commute well or not. Also, the only part of driving in my short 7 years on the road that I hate is driving in heavy snow or ice. Oklahoma has been getting hit very hard these last few Winters and I just hate losing any control of my vehicle. However I keep hearing that the car handles this stuff suprisingly well. Is that really the case.
I really would appreciate as much feedback as possible. Just keep in mind that I'm cool with the passenger/storage space, the safety, the fuel consumption, the jerky acceleration, and slightly rough ride at higher speeds. I'm just want to know if the car will get me from A to B(outlined above) and anything else to know positive or negative.