Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Smart Fortwo
What do you think about the smart fortwo? Let's talk about it here.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That said, I already own two cars (well, right now four, but two are up for sale) and when they are available I plan to purchase a Smart cabriolet just for kicks. My youngest child will be in preschool and the Smart will be an excellent vehicle for me to have fun in, run errands, go to the store, etc. when I'm by myself.
If its low enough in price and gets good mileage (which it is supposed to do in both) I am game for it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If they could do that in 1987 - with a four seater - why can't we get 70 mpg with a two seater in 2007 (20 years later)? -very curious about this.
Come on now, an AMC/Reault Alliance couldn't go 53 miles. :P
FWIW the Alliance was EPA rated at 41 highway and 34 city at best per the EPAs website.
If they could do that in 1987 - with a four seater - why can't we get 70 mpg with a two seater in 2007 (20 years later)? -very curious about this.
A couple of things. First is that there is only so much energy in a gallon of gas and it takes so much energy to move a pound a certain distance. Even if the engine was 100% efficent there is only so far a car will go on a gallon of gas and no further.
Secondly there is something called the law of diminishing returns. That basically says every increment is harder to achieve and more costly. In other words its faster, easier and cheaper to increase a cars mileage from 35MPG to 36MP than it is to increase it from 36MPG to 37MPG.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So can I its so versatile.
And my personal favorite:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So, what to do... I would like a second car for a) splitting the mileage with the BMW; b) running errands around town, and c) parking at the bus stop. Oh, and to get better gas mileage than the Bimmer. For the same money I could buy a used Beetle or a used Mini... but this comes with a lot of nice features standard for the money. I'll have to give it a test drive when it gets here.
I really wish we had some other smart options, such as the electric version (altho you still have to think about where your electricity is coming from -- coal, for instance, not a very clean option. I happen to be on nuclear power here, which has its own set of issues.) It's too bad they're deleting the roadster, which I've seen on the U.K. site, that might fly very well over here in the U.S.
As far as safety I think it's as good as a Mini. Definitely better than a motorcycle! Here in the land of (yawn) SUV-mania, anything you drive that's smaller than a tank is likely to be the loser in a battle with one of those things. However, I think smart has done as good a job as they can and probably more than most people expect for the size of car it is.
So before I settle on something I'll give the smart a test drive - after it's been around for a few months to see how things are going. Momma didn't raise no fool.
i'd pop for the cabrio and take the risk with the top--but these dealers (whenever they are announced) better not try and mark up those prices any higher than they are now. $12k for now air con and no radio? any funny business and i think i'll get the fit.
Of note is this, 2/3 the way down:
.
In the new smart fortwo there is once again no clutch pedal, as this task is performed by an electric motor. If the shift lever on the centre console is briefly tapped forwards, the transmission will shift up a gear, and if it is drawn back, down a gear. Alternatively, the gears can be changed by means of paddles on the steering wheel (standard for pulse).
To the right of the manual level, marked with a plus and minus sign, is the neutral position, N. Reverse gear is engaged by pulling the shift lever backwards from this position.
The smart fortwo passion comes with the automatic gear programme (softouch) as standard (optional for pure and pulse). It can be recognised by a small button on the shift lever.
***
So what this means is that it comes with a manual-only transmission with an automatic clutch(like the old Mercedes and VWs from the 60s)! Ie - not an automatic with a +/- shift mode. Automatic shifting for you is an optional add-on, which is exactly why I want the Pure - keep it simple.
That's a big relief, actually. I loathe automatics, and a clutchless manual is perfect for a car like this.
Not sure about you but I wouldn't want to get in an accident riding in anything short of an Abrams M1.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't understand that thinking. Look at it this way: the fortwo is 100% safer for both the driver and passenger than any motorcycle, motor scooter, (or bicycle) in an accident with a motor vehicle, yet 100's of thousands of people ride and enjoy them safely everyday. In addition, I would suggest that due to the outstanding crash-test results for the fortwo, the survivability of a passenger or driver in the fortwo in a crash would be as high, or perhaps higher than in any car on the road today that you think would be safer, provided (in either case) that the seatbelts are used. Come over to the educated consumer side from the knee-jerk reaction crowd: visit Smart's website, watch the crash test results conducted by independent agencies on Youtube and elsewhere, and you will learn why the NHSTA gave Smart the thumbs up.
Beautiful little car. Very spacious inside. I'm 5'8" and I had to push the seat 6 inches forward. It feels exactly like a Mini or Fit inside when you are driving - just when you look at the rearview mirror, there is NO REAR. It's odd - you don't feel that it's small from the driver's position. But it's tiny.
Great sound system as well. Love the plastic body panels.
It does need a seat height adjuster and a few things like a larger rear view mirror and the gearshift reworked. There's no way except for the all too easy to get washed out in the sun display in the dash to tell what it's doing. It's like a fancy joystick instead of a typical "D" arrangement with a +/- area off to the side.
All in all, I rate it a solid 9 except for one glaring problem. One that makes me, a 5 year fan and supporter of the car give it a "no buy" recommendation.
The transmission is the worst I've ever driven. Ever. Words can hardly explain how it is defective - but I'll try.
In automatic mode, there is half a second hesitation between shifts, but it does well enough. It feels like a stepped CVT. It's not precise, but it works okay I guess. My guess is all of the computers are fighting each other and getting in the way. But it's somewhat tolerable.
But put it into manual mode(only mode for the Pure/Base model!) and it is worse than a Bug, worse than a Yugo. Horrendous. Something is broken. And so severely that a typical U.S. buyer will literally walk away from the car.
I revved it and it took two seconds to shift every time. It would almost over-rev the engine by the time it got around to shifting. The only way I could make it shift *now* was to completely lift off the gas and pound on it as hard as I could again. Utterly brain-dead computer/controller.
The car was fast, though - great engine. So I would get a "vroom! lag lag lag slowing down lag.. SHIFT. wroom!!! lag lag my God it's a nice day outside ...lag... SHIFT. vroom! 40mph... lag lag lag *shift already now* - (hits the rev limiter) then shifts. Usually when I shift a car drops revs. This, at 2/3 throttle hit the limiter before it went from 2nd to 3rd. One one thousand... Two one thousand..
No, really - that bad. If anyone from Mercedes is reading this by some miracle, fix the transmission or sales will die. It feels like you took a Honda Fit or a very nice Mini Cooper S and gave it a lawnmower transmission.
Fantastic car and a joke that belongs in a kid's electric car or some piece of junk in one of those scooters from China for a transmission. And, even for me, a die-hard fan, it was too much of a dichotomy.
Fix it or no sale.
The MR2 is the same width, give or take. Check. In the event of a crash from the rear, there is a roughly two to three foot crumple zone - basically the area beyond the rear axle. This is standard on most cars in fact. On the both vehicles, since they are RWD, this is reinforced by solid axles and such - so it really is basically impossible to intrude much past the rear axle. The trunk area on both cars is about the same - just one is a hatch and the other is a convertible.
So the interior is about the same size - two people. Check.
That leaves the front of the car. With the engine on the Smart being mounted right above the rear axle, in a crash, it's a lot like a 911 - the thing is very tough from the rear. In a typical car, the engine is something that is there - it helps keep the other vehicle from intruding, but it's not really absorbing energy, either. So subtract the engine from a typical car, like, say, the Honda Fit. What you have left is a 2-3 foot long series of dead space crumple zones. The MR2s front is essentially a big empty thing like on a VW bug. Totally optional from a safety standpoint, since it is a mid-engine RWD car, just like the Fit.
That bears repeating, in fact, for those skimming this post. The fit is a mid-engine RWD car. It's toughest in a crash from the rear.
The entire front of the car is a dedicated crumple zone in the Smart. Think of it as a fwo foot wide bumper. This is what Mercedes spent a lot of their time on. Now, true, if it was me, I'd have lengthened the front by another two feet and put in a small trunk - just for asthetics, mind you - sort of what they did with the roadster.
So you end up with a car that is made to be a crumple zone built around a shell. It's actually very safe. But... there's a tradeoff. In the event of a crash, the entire car will literally destroy itself to provide that protection. Very much like how Formula One racecars come apart to protect the driver. So that means in practical terms that the tradeoff for the Smart owner is that you must carry full coverage at all times, because accidents will generally total the car outright.(ie - not just because the airbags went off)
Get Smart?
It's a sliding scale for sure, but I don't think I'm all that atypical and I need a vehicle that's going to do more than move me around a bit.
Hmm... it might be interesting to start a discussion about what a 'typical' car owner needs out of their vehicle. Sort of take everyone's needs and average them into some mythical vehicle that has 3.4 seats and can hold two large suitcase or something
And with the price of Goldwings, you might be able to trade even up! :surprise:
I think that story is rather misleading as they compare 33 MPG in the Versa to 40 MPG in the Smart. The issue is that 33 is Highway in the Versa and at worst 40 is combined in the Smart.
but I do think that market is somewhat limitied by the needs of most vehicle owners.
I would think that for most owners with two cars the Smart would be all they need for the second one. Look around on your daily commute and see how many cars have only one person in them.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
As far as the smart doing for a second vehicle, it might, in the right circumstances. Not for me however. My wife commutes to her job, and although she's usually alone, she also has to drive from her office to teach programs, carrying instructional materials that sometimes fill the trunk and back seat. So the smart is really not going to do for her. That leaves me working out of the house. I get the kid shuttle assignments, etc. and while thre are tasks the smart could handle, enough of them require a bit more than the smart could provide. Moving that double bass comes to mind! :P
Its the EPA highway estimate, 24 city.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not EPA numbers, actual recorded mileages. I have about 14,000 miles on it now and those figures have been consistent since I reached the 1000-1500 mile range
http://blog.checkeredflag.com/my_weblog/2007/10/us-smart-models.html
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-
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.
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.
Good call. The gen2 CRX had the same full wishbone suspension as the 1988 Civic and was about 200 pounds lighter.
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.
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!!!
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.
Edit: the official Euro numbers work out to 48 mpg combined.
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.
Sorry IIRC the new 2008 Smart available in Canada will be gas powered. And FWIW the Smart Canadian site states somewhere in the area of a little over 40 city and almost 50 highway.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D