My benchmark is it can make a u-turn in front of my folks' house without having to do a 3-pt turn. The Accord could do it if you used the lip of the driveway across the street and my folks' driveway, but the HHR did it curb to curb. The minivans can't do it all, at least the '89 Grand Voyager and the '98 Sienna. Its not a matter of speed, just can they do it at all. My buddy used to make u-turns in his Mustang by turning the wheel all the way and punching the gas (this was in HS...).
Its not a matter of speed, just can they do it at all. My buddy used to make u-turns in his Mustang by turning the wheel all the way and punching the gas (this was in HS...).
Yeah, my '68 Dart could do a pretty quick U-turn in a situation like that, but somehow I don't think that counts when they do those turning circle tests.
for a short turning circle was a Volvo Wagon, I think it was a 144 or 145 or something. Anyway it could turn from curb to curb on our small street and my old Carmen Ghia couldn't.
Funny, this is a major criteria whenever my wife test drives a car. Have no idea why, but who am I to criticize?
Some years back, we owned an Expedition and a New Beetle ("Beauty and the Beast" we called them). The Expedition actually seemed to have a better turning radius than the VW!
Don't know if that is true empirically, but from the seat of our pants, it was much easier to get the Expo into a parking spot than the VW.
Wife made me test drive a 2002 Expedition with her, and I veto'd that as soon as she needed the salesman's help to get the vehicle out of a tight spot.
for a short turning circle was a Volvo Wagon, I think it was a 144 or 145 or something. Anyway it could turn from curb to curb on our small street and my old Carmen Ghia couldn't.
Carmen Electra - model Karman Ghia - VW
I can understand the confusion, both are curvy but not a lot under the hood.
Don't know if that is true empirically, but from the seat of our pants, it was much easier to get the Expo into a parking spot than the VW.
Edmund's lists the Beetle's turning circle at 35.8 feet. As I recall though, isn't the Beetle a bit "Cab forward", with the windshield and A-pillars pretty far ahead of the driver? If so, that might cause perception issues that make the car harder to park because it just feels like it's bigger than it really is.
I've even noticed with my uncle's '03 Corolla, the location of the A-pillars blocks my vision. It's not a huge difference, but say, for example, the A-pillar on my Intrepid might be at 11 o'clock, whereas on the Corolla it may be at 11:15. And on something like my pickup it might be more like 10:30. It's enough to hinder my vision, and even if the thing's smaller than my Intrepid and especially my pickup, I'm familiar with where the blind spots and corners are on those vehicles. The Corolla takes awhile for me to get used to.
As for the Expedition, I dunno what the latest model is, but Edmund's lists the 2001 at 40.4 feet. That's actually not that bad for something that chunky. My Mom & stepdad have a '98, which is similar, and neither one can park it worth a damn.
I imagine that what might be going on here is that, while the Beetle is much smaller and more nimble overall, it may not be that nimble, given its size. Whereas the Expedition might seem light on its feet for such a big vehicle and just give you a more confident feeling.
Maybe visibility is just better with the Expedition, too?
Over the years I've noticed that many FWD cars have a larger turning circle than their wheelbase and track might suggest, as compared to RWD. I've suspected that this was done to reduce the stress on CV joints, particularly when the axle is not perpendicular to the wheel in the horizontal plane.
Yeah, what you said makes sense. I think we always suffered from visibility issues around the A-pillar with the NB, while the Expo, with all its glass and high visibility, was easier to maneuver.
Wife is just now getting used to the new VUE - figuring out where the corners are and stuff.
Over the years I've noticed that many FWD cars have a larger turning circle than their wheelbase and track might suggest, as compared to RWD. I've suspected that this was done to reduce the stress on CV joints, particularly when the axle is not perpendicular to the wheel in the horizontal plane.
That's a good point, I didn't even think about stress on the CV joints and such. Another theory I've always had is that FWD cars, especially the ones with transverse-mounted engines (which is most of them) pack an awful lot in between the front wheels. If you have a narrow track, that's going to limit how sharply the wheels can turn, which will result in a larger turning circle.
Seems to me that if you have a short RWD car with a wide track, that would give you the shortest turning circle. Adding wheelbase will increase the turning circle, but so will narrowing the car and the track, once it gets to the point that it reduces how sharply you can turn the front wheels.
And nowadays, I guess they're also running into problems because bigger, wider wheels and tires are becoming more popular. My Intrepid came with 16x7" wheels. That was considered pretty big at the time for that type of car. My Dad's '03 Regal, which is just a bit smaller and lighter, is shod with 15x6 wheels, and 15x6 were even standard on the LeSabre! But nowadays cars are getting these mammoth 17 and 18" wheels, and they're making them wider, too. Once upon a time, 7" wide rims were only common on copcars and I guess a high-performance and musclecars, although they seemed awfully common as an option on larger Chryslers. Many cars, even big 'uns, only had 5.5" wide rims! Kinda scary to think of a 5,000 lb '78 New Yorker riding around on something that small!
I'd imagine a 7" wide rim is considered small these days. No doubt, these bigger wheels and tires are causing the turning circles to increase.
Yep. Wider/bigger wheels are also to be blamed for it. Today's Civic has larger wheels than my 1998 Accord. For 2008, Accord Coupe/V6 gets 18x8 rims which resulted in slightly wider turning diameter (37.8 ft) than Accord Coupe/I-4 which get 17x7.5 rims (37.1 ft).
Interestingly enough, the turning diameter is actually down by 1.1 ft compared to the 2007 Accord Coupe/V6 which wore 17" rims. Wheelbase is up by 2.8" (to 107.9" from 105.1").
Interestingly enough, the turning diameter is actually down by 1.1 ft compared to the 2007 Accord Coupe/V6 which wore 17" rims. Wheelbase is up by 2.8" (to 107.9" from 105.1").
Wait, the '07 Accord's wb was that short? I thought that old "split wheelbase" thing for sedans and coupes went out of style with the 1981 LeBaron? :confuse: Guess I haven't been paying attention.
What is the track on the '08 Accord versus the '07? I guess it's possible the '08 has a wider track and more room between the wheel wells for turning.
I've also noticed that FWD rims in general have very little offset, with most of that width being backspacing. I wonder if they increased the offset a bit, reducing the backspacing at the same time, if that would let them design it so that the wheels can turn more sharply?
Accord Coupe has traditionally used shorter wheelbase, and that trend continues. The new coupe uses the wheelbase from 2007 sedan. Here are the numbers:
How DOES GM manage to make small cars drive like big cars? They did the same thing with the Fiero.
The Fiero had Chevette front suspension, and the rear suspension was a Citation front sub-frame turned around. That is a lot for any car to overcome. I hear Northstars are a good swap for the Iron Duke in those guys.
That's not to say that putting the front of one car in the back of another is inherently a bad thing. The original Audi UrQuattro and 4000 Quattro basically had Audi 5000 front suspension in the back (which is why they had tie rods on the rear suspension...).
I've seen these cars in real life and I personally can't imagine paying that much for one compared to a Fit for the same or close money. They are really just toys IMO and coyote ugly to boot.
It's hard to sell a car with very murky advantages over something twice as useful for the same amount of money. Sure you'll get a few thousand people who want the next new cool thing to take to Premature Burning Man, but after that, "show me the market", please. I smell a 4-wheel Segway.
I wonder how bit that "panorama roof" is. Does the Fit offer a big moonroof?
My thinking is that the Smart has to be unique in some way, that would be a start. I know the Cooper offers a twin moonroof that's pretty big, almost taking up the whole roof. That would draw some people in.
Also, the roadster model would be the cheapest convertible, though it's not a lot less than a base Solistice (you give up A/C on those, however).
They have novelty, at least at first. After that they have to sell on uniqueness.
I think it will appeal to a lot of folks who are into “lifestyle” choices, usually the metrosexual kind (or wannabes). They want to be different, be seen as such, and likes of Mini and Smart help do that in America (Beetle is probably too high volume and too old to be counted anymore). It could actually make for a decent replacement to scooters, if not motorcycles in places like, say, Manhattan or downtown San Francisco.
This actually reminds me of Dan Neil’s take on 2008 Accord. It is hilarious. An excerpt:
As I sat there in the Amana-white 2008 Honda Accord EX-L sedan, she looked over at me. I knew what she was thinking. I knew she wanted me.
And why wouldn't she? The Honda Accord ska-reams confirmed heterosexual, and not in a Larry Craig way, either. This car ought to be issued with a complimentary pair of relaxed-fit dad jeans. Every male owner should get a free BlackBerry, which is like monogamy's ankle bracelet. To own this car is to be possessed with an inexplicable urge to trim hedges. While other cars suggest the owner is still working out issues -- experimenting, if you will -- the Accord sedan says, "Hey, I'm past all that. I'm a smoldering volcano of straight suburban love, and I accept it."
For Accord-driving women, the message is related but different: "My husband likes girls."
add A/C, CD, and power steering (does it need it?) and you're at $13k basically
The one I drove at the roadshow had manual steering, and it was just fine with me. People who have only driven cars with massively overboosted steering might want the power option. The panorama roof is the entire roof panel on the outside. The inside isn't that large, but is still something like 80%, with a retractable shade. You might be able to get a base Fit for $14k (if you can find one), but you're trading mileage for a back seat and giving up some features.
Oh yeah they'll have tepid sales here and there and a lot of visibility and very little profit, just like in the past. They've been flogging the Smart for years and years and all the car has done world-wide is bleed red ink. And given the favorable conditions for a Smart in Europe (high fuel prices, narrow streets, very crowded metro areas) it STILL can't succeed there....much less in the land of 2 lb hamburgers and enough freeway paving to asphalt Europe end to end top to bottom.
It doesn't look good except on paper and in 30 second cutsy spots on TV.
I hear what you're saying but let's zoom in on the rest of the story. First, after the 30 second cutsy on TV, ("so you think you're SMART...not as "smart" as Mr. & Mrs. Smart from San Francisco...they can park in spots that dumber cars only dream about!"
Couple turns to each other while watching TV: "oh honey, it's so damn cute, let's get one!"
Then cut to showroom, couple sitting inside, reading over window sticker with dealer options:
I agree, the Fit is about the minimum size most Americans would even consider, so here's a question - how will we end up at a 35 MPG car+truck CAFE average in, what, 13 years, when only the smallest cars today would meet that requirement?
The Fit can be had with a manual transmission, and probably superior handling.
The manual I'll give you, but RWD and a 30% weight advantage (750 pounds) goes a long way. Someone will strap on a turbo and take it drifting before the end of 2008.
How DOES GM manage to make small cars drive like big cars? They did the same thing with the Fiero.
Now that you mention it, I remember going to a GM test drive event back in 2004, where they let you take the cars around on a closed test course, and get mildly aggressive with them. They had some of their own cars and the competition's cars.
I remember driving a 2004 Malibu with that electric steering, and the thing felt horrible. I think I could take my '79 New Yorker through that course with more confidence! I also remember driving an Equinox, and that thing had enough instability and wallowyness (if that's a word), that my buddy who rode with me actually hollered out "don't flip us over!"
Oddly though, we also drove a Suburban and Tahoe, and those big brutes felt downright nimble in comparison! Sure, they were bigger, although I don't think a Tahoe is really THAT much longer than an Equinox. But the steering was just more responsive, they felt quicker through the turns, and just seemed to corner more flatly.
We also drove a 2004 VUE, and I'd presume it had electric steering just like the Equinox? Well, if it did, it handled MUCH better. Still, the Liberty they also had on the course handled even better.
At one time, making a small car drive like a big car was actually a plus. Remember when they downsized their big cars in 1977? They were actually smaller and lighter than the midsized cars on the market at the time. However, they had to pay attention to the ride and make sure the cars gave up nothing in comfort. Otherwise, there would be no reason for people to choose, say, an Impala over a Malibu, LTD-II, or Fury. As a result, the cars did end up more nimble and manageable than the mastodons they replaced, but they managed to keep that big-car ride and comfort.
I even noticed with a 2000 LeSabre Custom I drove awhile back, as well as a 1995 Aurora, that these things felt bigger and more floaty than their size would suggest. Almost more like an early 80's full-sized Buick than a modern FWD car. Now in the case of the LeSabre, they probably engineered that numb, floaty feeling in, because that's what the typical LeSabre buyer wanted. But I don't know what the Aurora's excuse was.
Still, maybe GM is just stuck in a 1977 mindset, and thinks everyone wants their cars, even little ones, to "act" bigger than they really are?
how will we end up at a 35 MPG car+truck CAFE average in, what, 13 years, when only the smallest cars today would meet that requirement?
Maybe they'll really ramp up microcar production, flood the market, and start making deals like "Buy one Ram 1500, get two Smarts free!" :P
Also, CAFE doesn't include heavy-duty trucks, does it? I know they're not included in EPA estimates. I think the cutoff is a GVWR of 8500 pounds. I guess if they really wanted to, they could start beefing up 1/2 ton trucks to where their GVWR breaks the 8500 lb barrier, and they just no longer get counted. That actually happened with 3/4 ton trucks sometime in the 80's or 90's. It used to be common for 3/4 ton trucks to have under-8500 lb GVWRs. I remember my grandparents' '76 GMC 3/4 ton crew cab having an 8200 lb GVWR. And I saw an '86 or '87 Silverado 3/4 ton regular cab, 8' bed for sale once. Its GVWR was "only" something like 7600 lb. For comparison, my similar '85 Silverado 1/2 ton is only 5600 lb.
Nowadays though, I don't think there's a single 3/4 ton truck under the 8500 lb GVWR threshold. That gets them out of EPA testing, but I dunno about CAFE.
I agree about the Malibu's steering, but VW and others have done electric power steering fairly well.
I'd probably be fine with manual steering, but I bet most buyers here will want power assist. Any how, that would make it more affordable. At $12k and change, with that panorama moonroof, it almost (but not quite) makes sense.
I could see where GM doesn't want to produce a "small, jittery" kind of car like the MINI or xA can be at times, but they could take a tip from someone like Honda, who can make a car *appear* fast, or *smooth* or *nimble* without it actually being particularly so.
You do see how easily we can move from the virtues of a small car to the desirability of a more powerful one or a bigger one? daysailer and nippon are some of the only ones that like small cars just because they are small and daysailer isn't happy with the weight of the new sub compacts as they are.
Once we give up on the idea that we can have a light weight low powered car and be happy it is so easy to move on to a bit bigger of more powerful car. The matter of fact way we accept that the Mini Cooper has to be heavier to be safer and perform better and that the xD has the Power the xA should have had tells us a lot about how we as Americans feel about sub compacts.
I got my AAA magazine yesterday and they are recommending the CR-V for a long lasting choice in a cross over.
It's hard to sell a car with very murky advantages over something twice as useful for the same amount of money.
A couple of things, first is that the Fit will be more than the Smart. Secondly I would bet that many people don't need something twice as useful. For my daily drive the Smart is all I need. During my commute many cars I see have only one person in it. Due to that I would think that the Smart would be the perfect second car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not arguing that it's all you need, but do you need to pay so much for your limited needs? It doesn't seem to make sense that a person would pay say the same for a bicycle as a motorcycle because they only need a bicycle.
Of course, one COULD easily pay as much for a bicycle as a motorcycle, but it would be one helluva bicycle indeed...it wouldn't be a "smart bike". It would be the best bike in the world.
The Smart Car is a city car and if just 1-2 people commute in a city environment including a few suburbs then I'd think it would be an excellent commuter vehicle. I remember buying Geo Metros which were seriously underpowered but they were used on my brutal (at that time commute) and I'd trade them in every 18 months or so just before the warranty expired. However the smart car is not the best choice for the snowbelt states in the snow. I thought about one but even the Fit which I've owned a Jazz already is going to have problems on the hills and in the snow. in the city it's great but I think it depends where you live. For me a Mini Cooper S with snow tires will probably do the trick and it also gets good economy.
I'm not happy with the weight of the new subcompacts either. I do not accept that the new Mini has to be heavier to be better in any way at all, in fact weight increase just makes it worse. And they knew that, and they apparently tried very hard to make it meet the '09 EU pedestrian safety regs while retaining a small and lightweight persona. And it gained, what, 50 pounds or so? That seems OK, if not great.
At this point I am beginning to think that I may have to just keep my 2080-pound Echo with the VERY spry 108 hp, and put a proper suspension on it and some decent rims and tires, and keep it forever, something which isn't really my style - I am a frequent trader. But there will never be a production automobile this light again I am sure, even the new Lotuses are creeping up in weight. The next-gen Fit may change my tune, we will see.
And andre: "Still, maybe GM is just stuck in a 1977 mindset, and thinks everyone wants their cars, even little ones, to "act" bigger than they really are?"
I am firmly convinced this is EXACTLY why all GM small cars drive like big lumbering ones. It is not so much that they are slow, they aren't, it is just that they are not LIMBER. They are not agile. They lack the very qualities I like small cars for.
While I don't like the look of the Verve, I would applaud any attempt on Ford's part to bring fun small cars, especially subcompacts, to the American market. The last one, the Festiva, was anything but fun, although at least it was durable.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not arguing that it's all you need, but do you need to pay so much for your limited needs?
But the Fit does cost more, if you include sales tax and financed the difference the base Fit will cost you about $40 a month more in car payments. Not to mention that the Fit will use more gas than a Smart (the Smart could save me upwards to $20/month in gas) making the Fit more expensive to operate (all other things being equal). So I would have to ask why spend more for capacity that I do not need or want?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not arguing that it's all you need, but do you need to pay so much for your limited needs? It doesn't seem to make sense that a person would pay say the same for a bicycle as a motorcycle because they only need a bicycle.
Of course, one COULD easily pay as much for a bicycle as a motorcycle, but it would be one helluva bicycle indeed...it wouldn't be a "smart bike". It would be the best bike in the world.
I am pretty sure my road and mountain bikes are both more expensive than a Ninja 250 (although some may argue thats too small to be a "real" motorcycle), and if you want to really go nuts, its pretty easy to get over the 4k mark with a titanium road frame with a nice carbon fork and a Dura-Ace build kit and ahh..sorry I started dreaming again.
Cooper is sportier than the Maxx, though, while I'm sure the Fit will outperform the Smart.
To be honest, I think the Smart needs a bit of government assistance to truly thrive. Waive the registration fees, perhaps, or offer them HOV lane access with a single passenger. They occupy the same space as motorcycles!
Another idea - free or subsidized parking. Again, they take up less space. Squeeze two in to a spot that an SUV would normally take. Heck, maybe 3 if it's an Expedition or Suburban.
They need these incentives. I don't see than a few americans making that kind of sacrifice over a Fit or similar sub-compact.
I just looked at this site today because i was curious about pics of the cabrio: Smart.com
And now I get to see the tagline, "A car that offers maximum comfort, agility, safety, ecology and driving fun." Ummm... that's stretching it JUST A BIT, don't ya think??
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
It may fit some of those adequately ... but MAXIMUM? I don't have to drive it, I can tell you right now without a doubt it ain't doing ANY of those things to the maximum!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Agility, OK. It's easy to squeeze in to small openings in traffic, the same way my Miata is 100 times more agile than my van.
I've actually noticed in most traffic situations, that an extra couple feet of car really doesn't make much difference. Think about it. At 60 mph, 88 feet go by every second. If there's a tight squeeze that you wouldn't make with an extra 2 or 3 feet of car, there's a good chance that you really shouldn't be doing in a smaller car, either. At lower speeds though, or especially maneuvering around in tight parking lots I can definitely see the advantage of a smaller car.
Safety? Sounds like a stretch, but remember that video with the old model, which shows the structure was AMAZINGLY strong. Rats, YouTube removed it.
Was that the video where they ran the thing into a concrete barrier at high speed and it sort of just bounced off to the right, more or less intact? If it's the one I'm thinking of then yeah, it was pretty impressive how sturdy the little sucker was.
Would something that small and upright be easy to flip, though? Or are they still not that top-heavy?
When i turn on the fan only - no A/C to the extreme blue - I still get a lot of hot air, even when it is cool outside, almost like I am in a mild steam room. With the AC on it is fine, but, without it, it is uncomfortable to drive even 10 miles, almost feel better without the fan. I have driven a lot of other cars, so i know it is a problem here only, not with other cars, feels like a lot of engine heat gets transferred to the cabin or something similar - Anyone with the same experience ?? How do you overcome it
Comments
Its not a matter of speed, just can they do it at all. My buddy used to make u-turns in his Mustang by turning the wheel all the way and punching the gas (this was in HS...).
Yeah, my '68 Dart could do a pretty quick U-turn in a situation like that, but somehow I don't think that counts when they do those turning circle tests.
Some years back, we owned an Expedition and a New Beetle ("Beauty and the Beast" we called them). The Expedition actually seemed to have a better turning radius than the VW!
Don't know if that is true empirically, but from the seat of our pants, it was much easier to get the Expo into a parking spot than the VW.
Wife made me test drive a 2002 Expedition with her, and I veto'd that as soon as she needed the salesman's help to get the vehicle out of a tight spot.
Carmen Electra - model
Karman Ghia - VW
I can understand the confusion, both are curvy but not a lot under the hood.
Sorry I couldn't resist :P
Edmund's lists the Beetle's turning circle at 35.8 feet. As I recall though, isn't the Beetle a bit "Cab forward", with the windshield and A-pillars pretty far ahead of the driver? If so, that might cause perception issues that make the car harder to park because it just feels like it's bigger than it really is.
I've even noticed with my uncle's '03 Corolla, the location of the A-pillars blocks my vision. It's not a huge difference, but say, for example, the A-pillar on my Intrepid might be at 11 o'clock, whereas on the Corolla it may be at 11:15. And on something like my pickup it might be more like 10:30. It's enough to hinder my vision, and even if the thing's smaller than my Intrepid and especially my pickup, I'm familiar with where the blind spots and corners are on those vehicles. The Corolla takes awhile for me to get used to.
As for the Expedition, I dunno what the latest model is, but Edmund's lists the 2001 at 40.4 feet. That's actually not that bad for something that chunky. My Mom & stepdad have a '98, which is similar, and neither one can park it worth a damn.
I imagine that what might be going on here is that, while the Beetle is much smaller and more nimble overall, it may not be that nimble, given its size. Whereas the Expedition might seem light on its feet for such a big vehicle and just give you a more confident feeling.
Maybe visibility is just better with the Expedition, too?
Wife is just now getting used to the new VUE - figuring out where the corners are and stuff.
That's a good point, I didn't even think about stress on the CV joints and such. Another theory I've always had is that FWD cars, especially the ones with transverse-mounted engines (which is most of them) pack an awful lot in between the front wheels. If you have a narrow track, that's going to limit how sharply the wheels can turn, which will result in a larger turning circle.
Seems to me that if you have a short RWD car with a wide track, that would give you the shortest turning circle. Adding wheelbase will increase the turning circle, but so will narrowing the car and the track, once it gets to the point that it reduces how sharply you can turn the front wheels.
And nowadays, I guess they're also running into problems because bigger, wider wheels and tires are becoming more popular. My Intrepid came with 16x7" wheels. That was considered pretty big at the time for that type of car. My Dad's '03 Regal, which is just a bit smaller and lighter, is shod with 15x6 wheels, and 15x6 were even standard on the LeSabre! But nowadays cars are getting these mammoth 17 and 18" wheels, and they're making them wider, too. Once upon a time, 7" wide rims were only common on copcars and I guess a high-performance and musclecars, although they seemed awfully common as an option on larger Chryslers. Many cars, even big 'uns, only had 5.5" wide rims! Kinda scary to think of a 5,000 lb '78 New Yorker riding around on something that small!
I'd imagine a 7" wide rim is considered small these days. No doubt, these bigger wheels and tires are causing the turning circles to increase.
Interestingly enough, the turning diameter is actually down by 1.1 ft compared to the 2007 Accord Coupe/V6 which wore 17" rims. Wheelbase is up by 2.8" (to 107.9" from 105.1").
Wait, the '07 Accord's wb was that short? I thought that old "split wheelbase" thing for sedans and coupes went out of style with the 1981 LeBaron? :confuse: Guess I haven't been paying attention.
What is the track on the '08 Accord versus the '07? I guess it's possible the '08 has a wider track and more room between the wheel wells for turning.
I've also noticed that FWD rims in general have very little offset, with most of that width being backspacing. I wonder if they increased the offset a bit, reducing the backspacing at the same time, if that would let them design it so that the wheels can turn more sharply?
2007 Accord Sedan/I-4 (EX)
Wheelbase: 107.9
Track: 61.1/61.2
Rim: 16
Turning Diameter: 36.1
2007 Accord Sedan/V6
Wheelbase: 107.9
Track: 61.1/61.2
Rim: 17
Turning Diameter: 39.6
2008 Accord Sedan/V6 (EX/I-4 is identical)
Wheelbase: 110.2 (+2.3)
Track: 62.2/62.2 (+1.1/+1.0)
Rim: 17x7.5
Turning Diameter: 37.7 (-1.9)
2007 Accord Coupe/V6
Wheelbase: 105.1
Track: 61.1/61.2
Rim: 17
Turning Diameter: 38.9
2008 Accord Coupe/V6
Wheelbase: 107.9 (+2.1)
Track: 62.2/62.3
Rim: 18x8
Turning Diameter: 37.8 (-1.1)
The Cooper needs more elbow room.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Don't recall the turning radius, though. The xA has an excellent turning radius and does feel quite nimble. The xD does not.
The xD gave the power that the xA needed, but didn't do much else for the car that I can see.
I concur. I feel like the '93 Accord is nimble, the HHR is maneuverable.
The Fiero had Chevette front suspension, and the rear suspension was a Citation front sub-frame turned around. That is a lot for any car to overcome. I hear Northstars are a good swap for the Iron Duke in those guys.
That's not to say that putting the front of one car in the back of another is inherently a bad thing. The original Audi UrQuattro and 4000 Quattro basically had Audi 5000 front suspension in the back (which is why they had tie rods on the rear suspension...).
$11,590 for starters, but add A/C, CD, and power steering (does it need it?) and you're at $13k basically.
Prices seem to be close to the Honda Fit's, so it may be a hard sell.
Roadster for $16 and change, loaded still under $18k. Not bad.
It's hard to sell a car with very murky advantages over something twice as useful for the same amount of money. Sure you'll get a few thousand people who want the next new cool thing to take to Premature Burning Man, but after that, "show me the market", please. I smell a 4-wheel Segway.
My thinking is that the Smart has to be unique in some way, that would be a start. I know the Cooper offers a twin moonroof that's pretty big, almost taking up the whole roof. That would draw some people in.
Also, the roadster model would be the cheapest convertible, though it's not a lot less than a base Solistice (you give up A/C on those, however).
They have novelty, at least at first. After that they have to sell on uniqueness.
Good luck to them, they'll need it.
This actually reminds me of Dan Neil’s take on 2008 Accord. It is hilarious. An excerpt:
As I sat there in the Amana-white 2008 Honda Accord EX-L sedan, she looked over at me. I knew what she was thinking. I knew she wanted me.
And why wouldn't she? The Honda Accord ska-reams confirmed heterosexual, and not in a Larry Craig way, either. This car ought to be issued with a complimentary pair of relaxed-fit dad jeans. Every male owner should get a free BlackBerry, which is like monogamy's ankle bracelet. To own this car is to be possessed with an inexplicable urge to trim hedges. While other cars suggest the owner is still working out issues -- experimenting, if you will -- the Accord sedan says, "Hey, I'm past all that. I'm a smoldering volcano of straight suburban love, and I accept it."
For Accord-driving women, the message is related but different: "My husband likes girls."
I wonder what his Smart review will be like.
The one I drove at the roadshow had manual steering, and it was just fine with me. People who have only driven cars with massively overboosted steering might want the power option. The panorama roof is the entire roof panel on the outside. The inside isn't that large, but is still something like 80%, with a retractable shade. You might be able to get a base Fit for $14k (if you can find one), but you're trading mileage for a back seat and giving up some features.
It doesn't look good except on paper and in 30 second cutsy spots on TV.
I hear what you're saying but let's zoom in on the rest of the story. First, after the 30 second cutsy on TV, ("so you think you're SMART...not as "smart" as Mr. & Mrs. Smart from San Francisco...they can park in spots that dumber cars only dream about!"
Couple turns to each other while watching TV: "oh honey, it's so damn cute, let's get one!"
Then cut to showroom, couple sitting inside, reading over window sticker with dealer options:
"Er....on second thought, let's not."
Or gaining some features - The Fit can be had with a manual transmission, and probably superior handling.
The manual I'll give you, but RWD and a 30% weight advantage (750 pounds) goes a long way. Someone will strap on a turbo and take it drifting before the end of 2008.
Now that you mention it, I remember going to a GM test drive event back in 2004, where they let you take the cars around on a closed test course, and get mildly aggressive with them. They had some of their own cars and the competition's cars.
I remember driving a 2004 Malibu with that electric steering, and the thing felt horrible. I think I could take my '79 New Yorker through that course with more confidence! I also remember driving an Equinox, and that thing had enough instability and wallowyness (if that's a word), that my buddy who rode with me actually hollered out "don't flip us over!"
Oddly though, we also drove a Suburban and Tahoe, and those big brutes felt downright nimble in comparison! Sure, they were bigger, although I don't think a Tahoe is really THAT much longer than an Equinox. But the steering was just more responsive, they felt quicker through the turns, and just seemed to corner more flatly.
We also drove a 2004 VUE, and I'd presume it had electric steering just like the Equinox? Well, if it did, it handled MUCH better. Still, the Liberty they also had on the course handled even better.
At one time, making a small car drive like a big car was actually a plus. Remember when they downsized their big cars in 1977? They were actually smaller and lighter than the midsized cars on the market at the time. However, they had to pay attention to the ride and make sure the cars gave up nothing in comfort. Otherwise, there would be no reason for people to choose, say, an Impala over a Malibu, LTD-II, or Fury. As a result, the cars did end up more nimble and manageable than the mastodons they replaced, but they managed to keep that big-car ride and comfort.
I even noticed with a 2000 LeSabre Custom I drove awhile back, as well as a 1995 Aurora, that these things felt bigger and more floaty than their size would suggest. Almost more like an early 80's full-sized Buick than a modern FWD car. Now in the case of the LeSabre, they probably engineered that numb, floaty feeling in, because that's what the typical LeSabre buyer wanted. But I don't know what the Aurora's excuse was.
Still, maybe GM is just stuck in a 1977 mindset, and thinks everyone wants their cars, even little ones, to "act" bigger than they really are?
Maybe they'll really ramp up microcar production, flood the market, and start making deals like "Buy one Ram 1500, get two Smarts free!" :P
Also, CAFE doesn't include heavy-duty trucks, does it? I know they're not included in EPA estimates. I think the cutoff is a GVWR of 8500 pounds. I guess if they really wanted to, they could start beefing up 1/2 ton trucks to where their GVWR breaks the 8500 lb barrier, and they just no longer get counted. That actually happened with 3/4 ton trucks sometime in the 80's or 90's. It used to be common for 3/4 ton trucks to have under-8500 lb GVWRs. I remember my grandparents' '76 GMC 3/4 ton crew cab having an 8200 lb GVWR. And I saw an '86 or '87 Silverado 3/4 ton regular cab, 8' bed for sale once. Its GVWR was "only" something like 7600 lb. For comparison, my similar '85 Silverado 1/2 ton is only 5600 lb.
Nowadays though, I don't think there's a single 3/4 ton truck under the 8500 lb GVWR threshold. That gets them out of EPA testing, but I dunno about CAFE.
I'd probably be fine with manual steering, but I bet most buyers here will want power assist. Any how, that would make it more affordable. At $12k and change, with that panorama moonroof, it almost (but not quite) makes sense.
It seems to be very well received in Europe.
Once we give up on the idea that we can have a light weight low powered car and be happy it is so easy to move on to a bit bigger of more powerful car. The matter of fact way we accept that the Mini Cooper has to be heavier to be safer and perform better and that the xD has the Power the xA should have had tells us a lot about how we as Americans feel about sub compacts.
I got my AAA magazine yesterday and they are recommending the CR-V for a long lasting choice in a cross over.
A couple of things, first is that the Fit will be more than the Smart. Secondly I would bet that many people don't need something twice as useful. For my daily drive the Smart is all I need. During my commute many cars I see have only one person in it. Due to that I would think that the Smart would be the perfect second car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Of course, one COULD easily pay as much for a bicycle as a motorcycle, but it would be one helluva bicycle indeed...it wouldn't be a "smart bike". It would be the best bike in the world.
However the smart car is not the best choice for the snowbelt states in the snow. I thought about one but even the Fit which I've owned a Jazz already is going to have problems on the hills and in the snow. in the city it's great but I think it depends where you live. For me a Mini Cooper S with snow tires will probably do the trick and it also gets good economy.
At this point I am beginning to think that I may have to just keep my 2080-pound Echo with the VERY spry 108 hp, and put a proper suspension on it and some decent rims and tires, and keep it forever, something which isn't really my style - I am a frequent trader. But there will never be a production automobile this light again I am sure, even the new Lotuses are creeping up in weight. The next-gen Fit may change my tune, we will see.
And andre: "Still, maybe GM is just stuck in a 1977 mindset, and thinks everyone wants their cars, even little ones, to "act" bigger than they really are?"
I am firmly convinced this is EXACTLY why all GM small cars drive like big lumbering ones. It is not so much that they are slow, they aren't, it is just that they are not LIMBER. They are not agile. They lack the very qualities I like small cars for.
While I don't like the look of the Verve, I would applaud any attempt on Ford's part to bring fun small cars, especially subcompacts, to the American market. The last one, the Festiva, was anything but fun, although at least it was durable.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But the Fit does cost more, if you include sales tax and financed the difference the base Fit will cost you about $40 a month more in car payments. Not to mention that the Fit will use more gas than a Smart (the Smart could save me upwards to $20/month in gas) making the Fit more expensive to operate (all other things being equal). So I would have to ask why spend more for capacity that I do not need or want?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
One could say the same thing for the Mini Cooper versus the Malibu Maxx, yet the Mini somehow survived.
Of course, one COULD easily pay as much for a bicycle as a motorcycle, but it would be one helluva bicycle indeed...it wouldn't be a "smart bike". It would be the best bike in the world.
I am pretty sure my road and mountain bikes are both more expensive than a Ninja 250 (although some may argue thats too small to be a "real" motorcycle), and if you want to really go nuts, its pretty easy to get over the 4k mark with a titanium road frame with a nice carbon fork and a Dura-Ace build kit and ahh..sorry I started dreaming again.
To be honest, I think the Smart needs a bit of government assistance to truly thrive. Waive the registration fees, perhaps, or offer them HOV lane access with a single passenger. They occupy the same space as motorcycles!
Another idea - free or subsidized parking. Again, they take up less space. Squeeze two in to a spot that an SUV would normally take. Heck, maybe 3 if it's an Expedition or Suburban.
They need these incentives. I don't see than a few americans making that kind of sacrifice over a Fit or similar sub-compact.
Smart.com
And now I get to see the tagline, "A car that offers maximum comfort, agility, safety, ecology and driving fun." Ummm... that's stretching it JUST A BIT, don't ya think??
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Agility, OK. It's easy to squeeze in to small openings in traffic, the same way my Miata is 100 times more agile than my van.
Safety? Sounds like a stretch, but remember that video with the old model, which shows the structure was AMAZINGLY strong. Rats, YouTube removed it.
Ecology? Sure. Takes far less energy to build. Less engery to operate. Recyclable down the road. For sure.
Driving Fun? Ask me again after I drive one, but small cars usually are indeed quite fun.
I don't think it's too much of a stretch, except perhaps the comfort part. Heated leather seats and climate control can't be too bad, though.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I've actually noticed in most traffic situations, that an extra couple feet of car really doesn't make much difference. Think about it. At 60 mph, 88 feet go by every second. If there's a tight squeeze that you wouldn't make with an extra 2 or 3 feet of car, there's a good chance that you really shouldn't be doing in a smaller car, either. At lower speeds though, or especially maneuvering around in tight parking lots I can definitely see the advantage of a smaller car.
Safety? Sounds like a stretch, but remember that video with the old model, which shows the structure was AMAZINGLY strong. Rats, YouTube removed it.
Was that the video where they ran the thing into a concrete barrier at high speed and it sort of just bounced off to the right, more or less intact? If it's the one I'm thinking of then yeah, it was pretty impressive how sturdy the little sucker was.
Would something that small and upright be easy to flip, though? Or are they still not that top-heavy?