Is anyone impressed by these 'smart' cars? [ Archive] - GasSavers.org

DrivenByNothing

01-24-2008, 11:09 AM

I guess Mercedes recently released some 'smart' cars in Kansas. They're small (8ft long) and light weight (1500lbs). The power output is something like 70hp. Top speed of 90mph.

I like the idea, but they estimate the FE to be 40mpg hiway and people are lining up for them. Why? If I'm going to sacrifice that much, I better be getting at least 60mpg.

These things are general 'get one or two people around' vehicles. I like that idea since that's usually the number of people in my car at any given time, but again better FE would be needed.

I'd like to know what you guys think. Personally, I'm not impressed.

Lug_Nut

01-24-2008, 11:32 AM

Fully enclosed, heat, defrost, lockable, those attributes it has over a scooter or motorcycle.
Small size, fit three in a parking space, that it has over most automobiles.
For a commuter, specifically in the suburbs and city, it makes good sense.
For highway, or as an only vehicle, not so much sense.
For fuel efficiency, forgo th egasoline version, get the Canadian diesel version, at least 60 is about the worst they get.

philip1

01-24-2008, 11:44 AM

if they brought in the 660 cc or 700 cc car that got 61mpg I'd be more interested but a 1l that gets just 40mpg PAHHLEASE I got that in my 1.8l miata powered 323.

lunarhighway

01-24-2008, 12:06 PM

the diesel version available in europe get's over 71 mpg combined. (3.3L/100km) petrol's are stuck around 41mpg combined, according to the belgian smart site.

a micro hybrid drive version is available wich basically seems to be a fancy name for auto engine cutof at stops and while rolling slowly, wich brings the fe for the petrols up to 53mpg....

than again my car already has a "manual micro hybrid drive" (on/off buttons... so sure it's a good idea, but nothing to boast about...some opels had this as an option in the 80's but high price and technical issues made this an unpopular option so it was dropped soon)... but it proves the idea is valid, so i hope this will become standard on all cars at some point.

by 2009 a EV version should go into production that's said to be currently tested in london.

also interestingly a footnote disclaimer states "fe figures are for comparion only etc etc... and dependant on tire size"... again.... nothing we don't know, but apparently carmakers are actually aware of this....

the smart is a smart idea and cetainly proves cars can be something different than the average sedan, but i think, especially in europe, there's a broad choise of small city cars that don't take up that much more space than the smart, but can actually seat 4 people or cary something in the trunk when needed, especially when the rear seats folded... and they cost far less than the smart...

i thought the smart roadster was a neat car... looked better also seated two, and was more sportsy... and more aerodynamic...but i think what killed them was they where to uncomfortable to be used as a normal car, and not sportsy enought the compete with real roadsters...

still i like it that the smart is around on the carmarket rather than just an idea on a drawingboard...

jadziasman

01-24-2008, 12:19 PM

The smart fortwo gets poor mpg (for its size) for two reasons: I checked the technical data sheet on smartusa.com

1) Four valves per cylinder full time.

2) Final reduction is 4.529. With the other gear ratios, this little car is at 3400 rpm at 70 mph. There must not be enough power from the 1 liter at 2500 rpm at 70 mph. Premium fuel too? I'm not buying one.

itjstagame

01-24-2008, 12:42 PM

The answer is 'no'. I'm not impressed at all by ANY of the new vehicles that get 40MPG. And I have NO idea why people are clamoring for them.

I just keep saying to these people, in the 80s there were PLENTY of 40MPG cars, or get a 50MPG diesel Rabbit. The reason they're not around now is safety. Now I haven't looked at the figures and such to know how many less people are killed now a days and how much of the less deaths are associated to crumple zones and air bags, etc. But I'd like to see them. I mean the main reason people don't feel 'safe' in these cars now is because of SUVs, WHY does these things called SUVs exist? I live in a rural area and I can understanding wanting AWD but many cars have this now a days there's no reason to drive an aerodynamic brick and danger everyone else because it's too heavy and you can't control it.

On the other hand, I LOVE tiny cars. I'd love a Honda Beat or Mazda Autozam. And I don't think they get much over 40MPG either as an average. I'm not too sure why, probably just too small for proper aerodynamics and the engine is just too under powered for the load.

Like the fact the US gets a 1L with an absurdly low ratio trans, I bet the 1L has enough power to go 70MPH at 2500rpm, but with a higher diff ratio it wouldn't accelerate fast enough for americans.

Lastly, cars can be designed right, I mean 40MPG from a smart car is stupid, 30MPG from a Honda Beat is also kind of stupid, but somehow with all it's safety features and weight my 2002 Lexus ES300 can get 33MPG at 65MPH and THAT impresses me. Yes a Prius gets more than that but 45MPG is NOT impressive. The problem is the drivers. Sure I can get 33MPG in my lexus but I bet most people get 25MPG, they probably go 85MPH instead too. Just like the Prius owners, it's been proven that most people that drive like us on the board here could get 50-60MPG out of them and then they start to look more impressive.

thecheese429

01-24-2008, 01:20 PM

I'm not impressed with a golf cart with 40 mpg because I would expect a vehicle that size to get that much as a minimum. smart is an efficient car mainly because it is small. I think that it would be a much better car if they worked harder to squeeze something like 70+ mpg outta one gallon of fuel. maybe a diesel or something.

soletek

01-24-2008, 01:38 PM

I agree with theCheese429 small is a way to ease your driving experience but ugly dosent help. It should get at least 70 MPG taking in to acount that it is so light. also 16 years ago the Honda civic VX was getting way better milage than that and it weighed moore.

DarbyWalters

01-24-2008, 01:54 PM

Bring the Diesel and then we will talk...

basjoos

01-24-2008, 03:17 PM

Ease of urban parking is its main forte. Its gas mileage is a complete disappointment. When I'm cruising at 90mph (the Smart's maximum speed). I'm still getting 48mpg, well above the Smart's highway EPA. And this is in a 16 year old car with 4 seats and 3 to 4 times the interior volume, albeit extreme aero modded. Curious what the Smart's Cd is?

VetteOwner

01-24-2008, 04:10 PM

lol desil chevette that can fit 4 ppl AND 3ft of hatch space got 50mpg range...Gas version is mid 30"S to 40's that was way back in 76...

JESSE69

01-24-2008, 05:04 PM

The Smart smartly sucks. 40 mpg? My 99 Civic HX gets 42 mpg combined 2 days city 5 days hwy going 60 to 65 mph. Lots more space and cargo area too. If it really requires Premium that is so dumb, and I think it will bomb.

Erdrick

01-24-2008, 06:22 PM

No. They need a real manual transmission and a turbo diesel. The setup now is garbage. My Prius and Jetta TDi would leave them in the dust, FE-wise.

Randy

01-24-2008, 10:10 PM

You guys are WAY too hard on this car. First of all, it's the only 3-banger out there, in fact the only current car under 1.5 liter is the Civic hybrid at 1.3 (Note the EPA lists the Renesis at 1.3. As if.). It's also the only sub-100 hp non-hybrid. The Insight is dead, and never really sold many in the first place. Prop up its headstone next to the Metro, Fiesta, actually-compact Civic, diesel VW, fuel-efficient Saturn... kind of depressing, isn't it?

The smart pure starts at $11.6k. That's dirt cheap for a new car... the Aveo starts at only $1k less, and it's a freaking Aveo. The smart would get 33/41 in the 2008 mpg ratings (according to them, if it were rated). Look at the 2008 specs... in city or highway only 2 cars get into the 40's: the 40/45 Civic hybrid, and the 48/45 Prius. The runner up is the $14k 28/37 Corolla. The Yaris is 29/36, the Fit 28/34... kind of depressing, isn't it?

OK, fine, new cars are overpriced and can't get decent mileage. And why is a Civic VX better than a Messerschmitt KR200, or any scooter ever made? Safety, emissions, drivability and availability. Which is why the smart makes sense compared to some 20th century tin box. You won't be crushed quite so bad, pollute quite so bad, while enjoying your brand new heated seats and keyless entry. That is as good as it gets, for better or worse.

Note: I'm not in the market for a smart. They aren't impressive in an absolute way... but they're relatively decent little cars.

SD26

01-25-2008, 12:38 AM

We'll I'll go and bag on it too...LOL!

Yeah, 40MPG? There are diesel options, not currently new though because of the US EPA, which isn't helping anything, that get better FE, but also have good resale value and can carry more people and stuff.

The US isn't Europe, and we will not have 1200 year old cities with streets and buildings that have the physical size restrictions that would make something that small a dramatic advantage. Yeah, I can see where it could do some neat things, but, mostly, it would be a fair one person commuter car. If you have a family, you'll need another car.

SUV's? Before them, there were Vista Cruiser wagaons, Ford Country Squire wagons build on one ton chassis with 460's, and others. You could still pull your boat with those. The SUV is the natural progression of the wagon with a command seating position. Do many people own watercraft in Europe? I'm sure people do, but someone might know more than me on that.

skewbe

01-25-2008, 03:15 AM

Yah, an experienced hypermiler (Wayne Gerdes) only got about 60mpg, mainly because the transmission would not let the car coast.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/reviews/t-cleanmpg-previews-the-2008-smart-fortwo-7133.html

Put a stick shift in it and I'm sure it would do a lot better in the right hands.

DarbyWalters

01-25-2008, 04:52 AM

Voted no...but it is a small step in the right direction. If it sells ok it might induce car makers to bring over other "super small" vehicles they already have in production.

jcp123

01-25-2008, 05:30 AM

Seems to me it needs to lose weight, get a diesel, and some good looks.

SD26

01-25-2008, 06:44 AM

Seems to me it needs to lose weight, get a diesel, and some good looks.

Yeah...

http://www.allaguida.it/wp-galleryo/focus-diesel/focus_1.jpg

Think that SVT could put their hands in the diesel? :D

jcp123

01-25-2008, 09:59 AM

I'd love to see a 200hp turbodiesel Focus, probably a 2.5l Duratorq unit or something. That much torque would put a serious hurting on just about anything...and they should have brought that styling across the pond...

Oh, and the 1.8l Duratorq turbodiesel for the more mileage-conscious among us :D

kamesama980

01-25-2008, 11:32 AM

Rotareneg

01-25-2008, 01:01 PM

The smart pure starts at $11.6k. That's dirt cheap for a new car... the Aveo starts at only $1k less, and it's a freaking Aveo.

However, my Aveo5 SVM can carry both a passenger and groceries, and laundry, AND still have room left over. :p

brucepick

01-25-2008, 04:29 PM

Small is part of the formula for high FE. Unfortunately Smart is "small and tall". Contradictory but true.

Tall increases the frontal area so the total drag or air resistance is considerably higher than if it were low to the ground.

OK, tall seems to be a trend for many tiny cars. It's part of the "SUV's everywhere" curse we're living under. Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and Nissan Versa are kinda tall. Not much taller than the typical mid size car, but not shortened to reduce drag. Make the car so the roof only comes up to my chest instead of my chin. Drag will go down (all other things being equal) and FE will go up. Wind stability will improve too.

Dust

01-25-2008, 04:30 PM

It's funny I saw this thread. I just checked the price on smart cars here in Japan, in my area, and they are selling for about $5000. Still don't know if I would want a smart car on the highway. For most of the time, it would be a good car

DarbyWalters

01-25-2008, 05:54 PM

I think the "tall look" is partially an optical illusion caused by the thinner shorter wheelbase.

baddog671

01-25-2008, 06:21 PM

My metro is bigger, heavier, and 13 years behind in technology and still is rated at 44mpg, so no, im not impressed.

How about a hybrid/diesel smart car? Id be interested to see that..

Scott

01-25-2008, 07:41 PM

At first I fell in love with the car, for years it had to be grey marketed in, now that the Americanized version is here the first thing that put me off was the price. For some reason in my head I believed that half a car should be half the price. The Smart was supposed to be tiny, so you could fit 2 in a standard parking space, a city car with highway manners, I was sold. The thing I wanted was the il fated Yugo GTC, the last year Yugo was in production they made a convertible econo box. So when they announced the car was to be sold in America I wen't on line to get on the 500 waiting list, with just $1000 down.

Now the stuff that wetted my appetite was the fact that you could unbolt the body panels and change the color of your car, so naturally I wanted to go Harlequin. Then I found they make a convertable, the roof slides back and you stow it in the trunk. I was sold hook line and sinker, then I saw the price. The base model is $11,000, then comes the alloy wheels, air conditioning, AM/FM radio, and the gotta have fold back roof, which put me to a grand total of $17,000. That blew the candle out on my birthday cake, I'm sorry its too much.

So like any person who used to sell used cars, I'm like, well I'll wait 3 years and get a used one. Now that I find they only get 40, the novelty has really worn off.

VetteOwner

01-25-2008, 09:20 PM

not at 40 mpg.

I've got a 87 4 banger S10 pickup that gets 30mpg highway unmodified with enough balls to haul an engine, transmission, and all my tools up a 30* hill in the highest gear (that means at capacity counting me). With massive aero, a 5th gear (current is 4 speed manual) and beefier rear springs I could probably put a smart car in the bed and get 40 mpg @ 70mph

haha amazing trucks, GM made a bad move to cancel the S-10 line and go with the colorado (still dunno whats up with that I5 engine, havent heard much other than its not that much of an advatage over the 4 banger version except uses more gas:p ) ya gotta admit it had a VERY good run. 1983-2003:thumbup:

this just came to me, the aveo is like the modern day chevette! looks tiny yet when ya have a buncha crap to take somehwere it all fits with tons of room!:eek:

to me the smart seems like a huge novelty toy, add custom pannels, change pannel colors, etc yet when it all comes down to it it doesnt offer anything over if not less than a small econo car...:mad:

Hockey4mnhs

01-26-2008, 10:06 AM

if it can change the mind set of America then will be impressed. I think if it can get people out of there suvs and big trucks then it did its job.

TomO

01-26-2008, 12:19 PM

I'm one of the hard people to sway to a smart car. I currently have a 94 Civic VX. I can fit my family of four into the VX and still get 50MPG. During the warm months I get nearly 60MPG on the highways and during winter I still beat out the Smart's gasser mileage. I would also like to add that I did this all with less than $3000 invested into my VX including purchase of said vehicle and upgrades.

This doesn't mean that this car isn't great for someone else that doesn't need a lot of room and only commutes in the city though.

VetteOwner

01-26-2008, 12:32 PM

if it can change the mind set of America then will be impressed. I think if it can get people out of there suvs and big trucks then it did its job.

yea thats about all it can do (which im not complaining one bit)

101mpg

01-27-2008, 09:41 AM

I don't understand all the hype about the Aveo - it tops out at about 34 highway, right?

I get about 38-39 MPG highway in my wife's 2004 Malibu Maxx. With my WIFE (she drives for poor FE, nearly all city, etc.) driving, the Maxx gets 1 MPG less than the lifetime MPG that Aveo. 38 MPG across Nebraska at about 85 MPH, btw. Malibumaxxed.com has one owner with a loveseat in the Maxx. It's freaking HUGE inside. 6" longer wheelbase than the Malibu and it's 1/2" SHORTER.

Full leather package (we did NOT get a DVD player or a sunroof), split leather actually (leather with suede centers - better with a family), every luxury convenience known to man, independent sliding rear 60/40 seats (they travel 2 feet!), rear independent headphone jacks, heated seats so I can turn on the A/C and my wife can turn on the you name it, this is one of the ultimate road trip cars with a family!

However, my Aveo5 SVM can carry both a passenger and groceries, and laundry, AND still have room left over. :p

8307c4

01-27-2008, 10:35 AM

Honestly?

I think the sides and top are beautiful, almost a Lamborghini type of design, whoever thought of this is a genius, at least in terms of aerodynamics but also aesthetically it is a nice design.

Beautiful, splendid job so far, but then something awful must've happened, LOL...

I don't get the front and the back, that's just buckfutugleee...
It's like this genius ran out of steam before the car was finished...?

It's actually a simple matter of smoothing out that chopped off front and maybe bring the black portion in back down a little further. It wouldn't take much to straighten it out but as usual I'm not holding my breath, and I'm sorry but unless you promise 100+mpg you will never catch me buying an ugly car.

DaX

01-28-2008, 06:17 AM

Bring the Diesel and then we will talk...

Ditto. I met a guy at a car show with a diesel one and his 6 month average was 74 MPG.

bzipitidoo

01-28-2008, 01:06 PM

Disappointing. The Smart does about 1 thing to get fuel economy: stay small. Chopping out the back seat is merely an extreme way to be small. All the rest of the ways to save gas they didn't really do. Tall gearing? Aerodynamics? Engine tech? The US version is not even especially light.

I wonder how well one of those 1L stick shift mid '90s Metros would do if someone did a chop job on it and removed the back seat, thus shortening the body?

jadziasman

01-28-2008, 03:14 PM

Just read today that each Smart car is made by order only. And - get this- it takes ONE YEAR for them to deliver it!!!! That's not too smart. My source was today's Automotive News, which is a trade magazine for car dealers.

jandree22

01-28-2008, 03:21 PM

Fad. Nothing more, nothing less.

JESSE69

01-28-2008, 03:46 PM

I saw that it would cost from 12,500 to 17,500 depending on options. $17,500 is way too much for a tiny car, and a FIT would be better.

38 to 39 mpg hwy for a Malibu Maxx is impressive!

cfg83

01-28-2008, 05:24 PM

skewbe -

Yah, an experienced hypermiler (Wayne Gerdes) only got about 60mpg, mainly because the transmission would not let the car coast.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/reviews/t-cleanmpg-previews-the-2008-smart-fortwo-7133.html

Put a stick shift in it and I'm sure it would do a lot better in the right hands.

Yeah, lack of a stick-shift is my main complaint against it. I wish that the Smart ForFour was still an option because I think that would have been more practical for the US market :

1174

You get the "conventional look" of a VW Golf-like car coupled with the exo-skeletal safety cell.

The cleanmpg article was interesting because I got to read about the in-development "mild hybrid" option :

2008 SMART Fortwo – Near Future
MHD (Micro-hybrid drive) is being seriously considered. MHD allows an approximate 10% drop in CO2 emissions on the European FE test results. Currently, there is the MHD’s basic 12V Start-Stop system upgrade costing only 250 Euros. It is run off a larger 12V w/ Voltage being monitored for SoC. If there is too low a voltage, the SMART MHD will not allow a Stop-Start cycle. Expect the MHD to make it over to the US with a $500 premium or thereabouts.

This is a gizmo which I wish we all had as an option for our cars.

Also, since it can be flat-towed, it may become a Winnebago scout-car.

CarloSW2

101mpg

01-28-2008, 07:10 PM

We paid $11,888 for the Maxx with about 10,000 miles on it in 2007, so 3 year old vehicle. We pitted it up against every SUV on the market. I said it has to have equivalent or better mileage (ever one failed) and cost less (again, nothing new or used came within our price range). Better FE than any SUV, hauls almost as much as any minivan or smaller SUV out there, more than some like the RAV 4, etc., plus the LT is the luxury model!

It's the ultimate soccer mom car - good FE if you drive it easy and holds a TON. I don't feel bad when it's only a one-person vehicle, as it gets great mileage. The biggest drawbacks: if the stereo breaks, the car won't start, also - electric power steering. The 2007 has mechanical again - sacrifice of 1/2 mile per gallon - that's it.

It is also more comfortable than most Cadillacs. However - do NOT get the LS - very noisy, not nearly as comfortable.

I saw that it would cost from 12,500 to 17,500 depending on options. $17,500 is way too much for a tiny car, and a FIT would be better.

38 to 39 mpg hwy for a Malibu Maxx is impressive!

mustngr

01-29-2008, 07:03 AM

Anything currently sold in the third world will outperform this thing.

India has 75 hp diesel Swifts, (w/ABS, airbags, etc.) for example.

I see a lot of buyer's remorse once the new wears off. A step in the right direction (particularly if yer a meter maid).

As stated earlier, this is a car fo someone whose life is spent in a congested city, in which case it's actually OVERPOWERED.

JoeBob

01-29-2008, 05:21 PM

I don't see the problem with it...OK, if it had a manual instead of an automatic, if it had a diesel, etc. But it doesn't. If they sell enough, AND THEY CAN MAKE A PROFIT ON THEM!, you might see some of these things. If I were looking to buy a new car, I'd look pretty hard at these...99% of the time I am the only person in my car...my wife is only comfortable in the Cadillac.

When the Chevette first came out, my friends and I bagged on it a lot. A dozen years later, I bought one, used, and put another 150k miles on it. Only car I've sold in the last 30 years that still ran. When the Chevy Sprint first came out, my dad tried to talk me into buying one. I didn't think they would last as long as the payments...now I am driving a Geo Metro and realizing that my dad had a good idea after all. How many of the people bagging on the Smart now will be wondering why they didn't buy one 20 years from now?

VetteOwner

01-29-2008, 05:47 PM

Lug_Nut

01-30-2008, 07:56 AM

For some reason in my head I believed that half a car should be half the price.Would you be willing to accept half-comission on selling each one? Does the dealership pay half taxes on the showroom building? Half an ignition key and two tumbler lock? Half the wheel bearings? Does it need only half the importation paper forms and documents?
There are too many 'fixed' costs to allow pricing on a per-cubic-foot basis. And even at the 'suggested' price Diamler Benz is losing money on each one of the fortwo's. There was talk a year or two ago about dropping that model entirely.
(here's a link to an auto humor site with a twist based on the facts: http://www.sniffpetrol.com/issue072.html ).
The US market might be the last chance for this one.
Oh, the Dollar to Euro rate isn't helping much either.

stevieteg

01-30-2008, 08:09 AM

I read up on the smart car a few months ago and I was very disappointed with the FE. I like the idea of having smaller cars on the road, but I wouldn't buy one. If they made some improvements in the mpg department, I would consider it though.

white90crxhf

02-14-2008, 06:21 PM

my crx gets around 45 and actually looks good unlike that piece of ____.

Also i can put an 8ft step ladder in my crx, also a christmas tree...i bet that "smart" car can't.

Mike T

02-15-2008, 10:04 AM

Testimonials about how one's own pickup or CRX does on the highway against the new EPA official ratings of the smart are humerous, especially on a site like this where people know better than to do that. How many members here are exceeding their cars' (new) EPA ratings?

Especially in the convertible version, the smart is a hoot and is totally unique. As a gas saving tool it's middle of the road, as a fun car to drive, it is the best for smiles per gallon.

Oh yeah and mine (diesel) gets over 60 US MPG, lifetime, without trying at all, on wide wheels and tires.

The diesel should be coming as a 2010 model.

white90crxhf

02-16-2008, 11:13 AM

diesel has 11% more energy per gallon. Your 60mpg is equal to my 54. still impressive, but you have to drive that 'thing' they call a car.

Mike T

02-16-2008, 01:28 PM

Curious comment from a CRX owner, which is a pretty strange-looking stumpy vehicle itself. The convertible top makes the smart a dream to drive.

VetteOwner

02-16-2008, 03:54 PM

yes but the crx, much liek a chevette, is a hatch back. they defy the laws of physics in thre sense that they look tiny YET can fit an amazing ammount of people and crap in them.

i think what whitecrx is tryign to say is that for the same mpg you could have a car thats just as easy to drive, better looking (his opinion, i liek the crx better too tho :P ), and can carry around more stuff making it more versitale for everyday life.

Mike T

02-16-2008, 10:29 PM

I can carry a week's shopping for a family of five in the smart, and with the roof down, a grandfather clock too.

Wazabi Owner

02-18-2008, 09:44 PM

I'll be the other person to chime in with Mike T and say something positive about the Smart.

The first thing is the mileage ratings, this is for a "Average Joe" driver. I think one with a hypermiling background can easily achieve 50mpg - which is well over the advertised 40mpg. I read the cleanmpg article and see Wayne got 60mpg. What he failed to mention was how many miles were on the car? Is it loose? (for non-car people, Has it been broken in?) Brag all you want about your CRX, Metro, Chevette:) Aveo:rolleyes: etc, of course they "should" get great mileage since they are essentially - loose.

The Smart has to have an acquired taste, its finally grown on me though it took some doing - much doing. I'll get one since I know that I'll achieve a better rating than the advertised one - I just wish Americans were offered the diesel as I love them diesels. All this being said, I did the initial ordering on my Smart this morning after waiting for 5 months just for the order form alone. The car still won't be in for another 8 months or so, no big deal as I don't need a car and when it comes in I probably won't constantly drive it anyhow. (another story in itself)

Sooo, I see the haters side of the story too......but geesh, "all that hate is gonna eat you up boy." :cool:

samandw

02-19-2008, 04:17 PM

Utterly unimpressive.

Especially when a 1976 Plymouth Feather Duster got 24/36 with an ancient design I-6 and all the aerodynamics of a barn door.

http://www.valiant.org/duster.html

cfg83

02-19-2008, 04:29 PM

Hockey4mnhs -

if it can change the mind set of America then will be impressed. I think if it can get people out of there suvs and big trucks then it did its job.

I think this is very important because you can argue that the CRX proved there was a market for the Toyota Paseo, Nissan Pulsar/NX, and Mazda MX3. If the Smart can help to establish a "micro car" market in the USA, then we all win.

CarloSW2

JESSE69

02-19-2008, 07:58 PM

The Smart is not a very Smart car! And an old CRX HF is better!

cfg83

02-19-2008, 09:01 PM

Wazabi -

I'll be the other person to chime in with Mike T and say something positive about the Smart.

...

The Smart has to have an acquired taste, its finally grown on me though it took some doing - much doing. I'll get one since I know that I'll achieve a better rating than the advertised one - I just wish Americans were offered the diesel as I love them diesels. All this being said, I did the initial ordering on my Smart this morning after waiting for 5 months just for the order form alone. The car still won't be in for another 8 months or so, no big deal as I don't need a car and when it comes in I probably won't constantly drive it anyhow. (another story in itself)

Sooo, I see the haters side of the story too......but geesh, "all that hate is gonna eat you up boy." :cool:

Yeah, it's funny, but the CRX is also an acquired taste. I think it's gorgeous, but when it first came out, some people didn't get it. I remember someone making fun of the CRX, saying it looked like it was hit from the rear. One of the reasons why I loved it was that it was a "form follows function" design. It was a small two-seater, but the shape allowed for practical use of it's cargo space.

CarloSW2

Mike T

02-20-2008, 02:30 PM

Utterly unimpressive.

Especially when a 1976 Plymouth Feather Duster got 24/36 with an ancient design I-6 and all the aerodynamics of a barn door.

http://www.valiant.org/duster.html

And that is tested to the 2008 EPA standard, no doubt.:p Come on smart haterz, you'll have to do better than that. Your arguments are utterly unimpressive.:D

samandw

02-20-2008, 02:52 PM

And that is tested to the 2008 EPA standard, no doubt.:p Come on smart haterz, you'll have to do better than that. Your arguments are utterly unimpressive.:D

Well maybe not the 2008 standards, but the point remains. Compare the Smart to many older cars, and it is outperformed in FE, passenger carrying, acceleration, cost, etc etc. The 1995 Honda Civic VX for example, carries 5 people, gets far better FE, has a better power-to-weight ratio, and had an MSRP of $16,434 in inflation adjusted 2007 dollars.

trollbait

02-20-2008, 05:07 PM

Bear with me, I'm going to throw up a bunch of numbers.

car(w/ 5spd man.) city mpg/ combined mpg/ highway mpg from fueleconomy.gov
'90 CRX ...........................27/29/32
'90 CRX HF .......................36/39/44
'90 CRX HF w/ SIL..............40/43/47
'95 Civic VX.......................37/40/45
'95 Civic VX w/ SIL.............39/43/50
'08 Smart...........................33/36/41

Except for the SIL cars(why would a shift indicator light be such an improvement), the smart isn't greatly outclassed. It's better than the regular CRX, and within 10% of the non-SILs. Yeah, it's a niche car, but so was the CRX. Any two seater will be. Most people are just driving themselves around, though, with families having access to a second vehicle.

It won't have widespread availability, in the beginning. How available are those Hondas? For a person buying in the next couple of years, finding any of those cars without major effort may not be possible. Smarts are being built now while the numbers of those Hondas slowly decrease. Plus, not everyone wants a car that's 13+ years old. A lack of safety features is a reason beyond possible maintenance.

Let's do a more reasonable comparison for an average person looking for a new smaller car.
Fit................27/30/34.........21
Civic.............25/29/36.........12
Yaris.............29/31/35.........13
Corolla...........26/29/35.........14

Those are the numbers for automatics, since that is what most people buy in the US.
The trailing number is cargo space(cu. ft.). The Smart is 7.8 to the belt line and 12 to the roof. I don't know where the EPA measures to for their numbers, but I don't think they ignore anything.

The Smart beats them all. A hybrid can do better, but then you might be paying twice as much.
Aside from the Fit, it has cargo space comparable to the others. Granted it doesn't have the versatility for bulky items, but it has versatility in parking. It is also all-weather capable and safer than a motorcycle.

The Smart isn't a perfect car. It won't work as an only car for families, but it is a niche car. That niche is to get a person to and from work economically. It does that better any new car available now. Hopefully, it will do well enough so that other small, fuel efficient cars will become available.

CaliberMan71

02-20-2008, 07:29 PM

I have sat in them they are kind of roomy. They are a near zero emision car as well. Besides I was considering a motor cycle, but I can drive the SMART year round.

boxchain

02-20-2008, 10:13 PM

I like the idea of a Smart, but would I buy one? No. I think if I worked downtown instead of reverse commuting I would. I'd save more in parking than in gas though :D And I'd still keep a 'real car' for times when I would need the space/comfort/speed abilities.

I saw them all over Europe when I was there a few years ago, and they make more sense there, where you don't have a bunch of ignorant zombies talking on cellphones and yelling at their kids while driving their behemoth SUVs poorly, or drunk belligerent yahoos in jacked up dually pickups. The safety features are impressive, but I think it would take about a month before someone crunched into you and said 'how was I supposed to see you driving that little thing?' It's bad enough driving a Civic...

I'd like to see a hypermiler get ahold of one and see what kind of mileage could be coaxed out of it.

And, I'd get the Sport :D

Wazabi Owner

02-20-2008, 10:21 PM

EXACTLY!! YOU'VE sat in one!!!

Now....how many of the haters have sat/driven/rode in one? I'm sure there may be a onesy or twosy but most probably are say they are junk without having any real reason to back it up besides the 2008 EPA mileage ratings and the opinion (not fact) that they are ugly.

Try one first and then come back and say why you don't like it. When I drove the 451 for all of a few miles it was "buzzy", but really thats about it - the exhaust sound but it does grow on you. It whoops any one of my diesel cars in acceleration. As far as acceleration I'd compare it to my old Metro, not quite as quick as the Insight though. Those are the only two 3cyl cars I've owned that I can give an honest comparison to.

As stated below, it is supposed to be a low emission vehicle - my personal gut feeling is if that old 225 had the same extra emissions standards it wouldn't be pumping out those stellar 197X EPA 55mph no A/C closed course non-realistic MPG numbers.

I have sat in them they are kind of roomy. They are a near zero emision car as well. Besides I was considering a motor cycle, but I can drive the SMART year round.

Wazabi Owner

02-20-2008, 10:29 PM

I used to hear the SAME EXACT thing when I was driving my Metro and Insight (geez now I'm sounding like a broken record talking about those two). Not a day didn't go by when somebody would do the "what if you got hit by a tractor trailer". I drove them for a few years and lived.......:p I'm not scared of small cars even though there are some SUV non-driving goofs out there that would slam into me the moment they run out of battery from talking on their cell too long.

I still think once people get their engines broke in, pump up the tires a few extra pounds and maybe a few other things, 50mpg is a more realistic mileage for an amateur hypermiler. Hardcore hypermilers....the sky is the limit. :D

.......... but I think it would take about a month before someone crunched into you and said 'how was I supposed to see you driving that little thing?' It's bad enough driving a Civic...

I'd like to see a hypermiler get ahold of one and see what kind of mileage could be coaxed out of it.

And, I'd get the Sport :D

yellowtail3

02-20-2008, 10:49 PM

I'm disappointed in the MPG numbers for the fortwo. I don't think it offers the utility of a mid-90s Escort Wagon, and it gets about the same mpg.

no thanks, I'll keep the ol' wagon.... .

boxchain

02-20-2008, 11:06 PM

I drove them for a few years and lived.......:p I'm not scared of small cars even though there are some SUV non-driving goofs out there that would slam into me the moment they run out of battery from talking on their cell too long.
I'm not scared of dying in a Smart (Mercedes safety systems!), I'm worried about someone ruining my shiny new car because it was below their horizon. :mad:

I still think once people get their engines broke in, pump up the tires a few extra pounds and maybe a few other things, 50mpg is a more realistic mileage for an amateur hypermiler. Hardcore hypermilers....the sky is the limit. :D
Agreed. If only it had a real manual..isn't it a sequential autoshift?

Mike T

02-20-2008, 11:29 PM

SMG, but single clutch, so it shifts slowly, not like a BMW M3 or Maserati CambioCorsa.

The shifter makes it look as though it's an automatic, but it is not (which is obvious when driving it). Having said that, they have taken some pains to give the impression that it's an auto for the North American market, starting with the PRNDL shifter. The "P" position does have a gearbox detent to prevent roll-away, and (more worryingly) the car will creep forward with the car in drive and the brake pedal released (meaning it's kissing at the clutch lining). I like the European market shifter and its lack of "creep" function better.

The car sits as high as a "cute-ute" SUV like a RAV4, so not being seen is unlikely, unless Bubba is blind.

I would buy the 98 HP Brabus version in a second, so here's hoping they bring it over in 2009 or so. I would keep the 60+ MPG smart cdi that I have now too.

white90crxhf

02-21-2008, 12:16 PM

JanGeo

02-21-2008, 01:13 PM

Yeah you have to looks at the advantages that you NEED before you buy one. If you don't need a very small car then don't get it.

Mike T

02-21-2008, 02:23 PM

my 18 year old car pollutes less, gets better mileage, can carry more, and looks 100times better.

i can't imagine the smart car doing any better when rear ended. I'd bet it would do worse, look how close you are to the back of the car.

Pollutes less? Prove it.

Looks better? I don't agree.

Gets better mileage? So how far have you driven one, to arrive at that conclusion?

Carries more? Probably, but why not buy a dually P/U if that's a major criterion.

Transport Canada has been testing new cars for rear end impacts (on a voluntary basis) for a decade or so, as until this year there was no impact standard by regulation.

Of all the cars they tested between 1997 and 2007, ONLY the smart fortwo (first generation version that I have) passed the test. ONLY the smart.

You can be an armchair engineer if you like, but if you don't know what specific measures Mercedes-Benz took in designing the car, its restraint systems, its crash management systems and the special steel-shelled seats that are in it, you will only look foolish when predicting that a rusty old Honda would do better :D

VetteOwner

02-21-2008, 05:06 PM

Utterly unimpressive.

Especially when a 1976 Plymouth Feather Duster got 24/36 with an ancient design I-6 and all the aerodynamics of a barn door.

http://www.valiant.org/duster.html

hahahah i dunno why i laughed at the barn door comment:D

SD26

02-21-2008, 06:27 PM

WOW!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZs1QuHerTU)

white90crxhf

02-21-2008, 08:59 PM

Pollutes less? Prove it.

Looks better? I don't agree.

Gets better mileage? So how far have you driven one, to arrive at that conclusion?

Carries more? Probably, but why not buy a dually P/U if that's a major criterion.

Transport Canada has been testing new cars for rear end impacts (on a voluntary basis) for a decade or so, as until this year there was no impact standard by regulation.

Of all the cars they tested between 1997 and 2007, ONLY the smart fortwo (first generation version that I have) passed the test. ONLY the smart.

You can be an armchair engineer if you like, but if you don't know what specific measures Mercedes-Benz took in designing the car, its restraint systems, its crash management systems and the special steel-shelled seats that are in it, you will only look foolish when predicting that a rusty old Honda would do better :D

crx pollution & gas mileage http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=6410
'smart' pollution and gas mileage http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2008&make=smart&model=fortwo%20convertible&hiddenField=Findacar

Got you beat by 1600lbs of co2. :D

it's very handy to be able to borrow my fathers 8ft step ladder without having to buy a $30,000 truck. Bring a Christmas tree home from the lot. yadda yadda

looks like i bet wrong with the rear end saftey.

though this doesnt look so good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s&feature=related

lol man that thing is disgusting, it makes a metro look good :p

Mike T

02-21-2008, 09:54 PM

Got you beat by 1600lbs of co2. :D

No, you MAY have someone with a gasoline smart car beaten on carbon dioxide; my cdi is ahead of you.

But "Officially" the USA does not consider carbon dioxide to be pollution. NOx, HC, CO, PM, THAT is pollution. So let's see the comparison of those.

Any stepladder would fit easily in my car....with the top down.

yellowtail3

02-21-2008, 11:31 PM

Yeah, but can the Smart carry a deerstand, rifle, shotgun, backpack two pairs of boots, knife, box of 30.30 & two more of 12GA #1 & 00 buckshot... and still have a back seat for extra clothers & gear? AND get 35+mpg?

i really like the ideas of a hybrid or VERY efficient newer car... but they're aren't worth it, yet. Not even close.

white90crxhf

02-22-2008, 06:10 PM

No, you MAY have someone with a gasoline smart car beaten on carbon dioxide; my cdi is ahead of you.

But "Officially" the USA does not consider carbon dioxide to be pollution. NOx, HC, CO, PM, THAT is pollution. So let's see the comparison of those.

Any stepladder would fit easily in my car....with the top down.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089

For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. As a result, diesel engines account for an estimated 26 percent of the total hazardous particulate pollution (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in our air, and 66 percent of the particulate pollution from on-road sources. Diesel engines also produce nearly 20 percent of the total nitrogen oxides (NOx) in outdoor air and 26 percent of the total NOx from on-road sources. Nitrogen oxides are a major contributor to ozone production and smog.

lol something that supposedly is warming our planet must be a pollutant, i mean our governments wouldn't lie to us would they? :D

i really doubt you want a 12ft step ladder in your car :p

Mike T

02-22-2008, 08:50 PM

cfg83

02-22-2008, 10:11 PM

Hello -

I went looking for crash test results, but this is all I could find :

http://www.crashtest.com/mercedes_benz/index.htm
1201

http://www.crashtest.com/honda/index.htm
1202

And here's more grist for the mill :

57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm
Today's consumers also expect safety. In the 1980s, car companies would sell cars that got one-star or two-star crash test ratings. Numbers like that would now cause car companies fits. Four out of five stars is considered the minimum acceptable rating.

The modern Civic has airbags front and side, electronic stability control and built-in crash protecting structures in the body. (See correction.)

Even the CRX's biggest fans wouldn't relish the thought of getting into a wreck in one of those cars. While actual crash test results are not available, even a Honda (HMC) spokesman admitted the car probably wouldn't have fared well by modern standards.

"Without the benefit of modern crash structure and extensive use of high strength steel, cars from two decades ago couldn't match the crash test performance of today's Hondas," said Honda spokesman Chris Naughton.

Increased safety, meaning more weight from airbags and crash structure, has meant lower fuel economy.

"It's kind of a classic engineering fight where safe cars compete with more fuel-efficient cars," said Todd Lassa, a writer for Motor Trend magazine and a CRX aficionado.

I would think that the 2nd gen CRX would be better than the 1st gen, but who knows?

CarloSW2

Mike T

02-23-2008, 12:53 AM

1998 Civic: http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_1998/35.aspx

2000 smart: http://www.euroncap.com/tests/smart_city_coupe_2000/29.aspx

2007 smart: http://www.euroncap.com/tests/smart_fortwo_2007/303.aspx

I'd wager that the 98 Civic is a far better crash performer than a CRX, which is from two generations earlier.

Even the W202 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (1994-99) was only a two star car.

In N Out

02-23-2008, 03:41 AM

New US SMART Car is lame. I want Euro the verison.

white90crxhf

02-23-2008, 11:33 AM

Ahh but you were slagging the new gasoline version, so let's stick to that comparison, shall we? And I want to see recent smog check results from your car! Enquiring minds want to know.

The smart cdi has an oxydation catalyst and does not smoke, though it does produce more PM than any (new) gas engine that's not burning any oil. Its EGR ensures that NOx is also far, far lower than old school diesels. But that too is still higher than a (new) gas engine.

Anyway, let's look again at the aesthetic arguments. You may not know this, but there are only two automobiles in the permanent collection ot the Museum of Modern Art in NYC:

1947 Cisitalia 202
smart car

Yes, the smart car! I don't think the CRX was even on their short list ;)

The wonderful state of Virginia does not test for smog where i live. Are we comparing your diesel for carbon dioxide and pollution or are we comparing the gasoline version for carbon dioxide and pollution? either way, it's a tie :p

lol have you ever seen modern art? It is not a compliment to be in their museum. :D

@CarloSW2

2nd gen crx made in 90 & 91 is different that 88 & 89, some more saftey standards had to be met in 90 & 91, possibly 89, though i believe they have differnt doors.

Mike T

02-23-2008, 02:42 PM

I love modern art, the Centre Pompidou in Paris is a must-see. One day I will go to MOMA.

I want the BRABUS version, with 98 HP. Fuel economy be damned.

Mike T

02-28-2008, 11:36 PM

A US member of Club smart Car got 53 US MPG in his 71 HP gas engined smart on a recent trip: http://clubsmartcar.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=12601&view=findpost&p=187247

He is not a hyper-miler. So it's not all doom and gloom in the gasoline world.

DanQ

04-01-2008, 11:39 AM

I was seriously looking at a Smart. I'm hoping I could get better than the 33/41 EPA ratings, but the premium fuel requirement is the current deal breaker. If you have to pay $0.25 / gal more for fuel you use up most of the mpg savings over something like a Yaris (29/35).

Add to that the 1 1/2 year wait for a Smart, and I bought a 08 Yaris HB.
Maybe there will be a manual or diesel Smart in 09?

I'm getting about 36 mpg on my commute with the yaris (suburbs, stop&go, some 45-50 mph):thumbup:

AMX

04-01-2008, 01:14 PM

There's other cars out there that get as good / better mileage than the Smart car, more room, look better, are safer, and give better performance. In my own opinion.

Hateful

04-01-2008, 02:37 PM

I'd drive one; I don't carry a lot of equipment every time I drive. For safety, it's better than any motorcycle( I never see people threatening to kill them for having a smaller vehicle). To get the mileage I do now I have to work at it,but with a smart car I'm sure I could take off just as fast or faster than I do now,so even less chance of being hit by the super-size wagons.My Cavalier is rated at only 24mpg combined EPA estimate,so since I don't live in the frozen foods dept. of the world I could probably squeeze 75 to 80mpg out of one easily.

VetteOwner

04-01-2008, 03:40 PM

does anyone know what the early 80's ford escorts got mpg wise? the dodge omi/plymoth horizon? gas VW rabbit? (desils took liek 0-60 in 30 seconds but got insane mpg) anyoen remember, im sure someone on heres had one of em at one time

Hateful

04-01-2008, 06:24 PM

my 87 escort EXP got 25mpg (30mpg on long trips),But I was going as fast as I thought I could get away with. 1.9 Litter 5 speed manual.

Wazabi Owner

04-01-2008, 08:53 PM

I got an email from Smart yesterday saying I should receive delivery of mine between Nov of this year and Jan 09 (reservation made Sep 07). The wife has been wanting one forever (several years) so we'll wait patiently and save up some $$ to do a hefty downpayment.

As far as looks go, come on - that's purely opinion. :thumbdown: Mileage, if anyone here gets the new EPA figure on their current vehicle and is 100% satisfied with that then they should be tied up and horsewhipped - of course that's my opinion :rolleyes: .

I looked at the Yaris, liked it too. Looked at the Hyundai Accent too and REALLY liked it because they have a color I like as the Yaris color selection leaves a bit to be desired.

The Smart is lot more buzzy and fun to drive than a Yaris or Accent though. I liked that a LOT about it. It's like getting to drive an ultra safe luxurious gocart to work everyday. How awesome is that!?

VetteOwner

04-01-2008, 09:19 PM

It's like getting to drive an ultra safe luxurious gocart to work everyday. How awesome is that!?

LOL sounds like a chevette but change "ultra safe" to "you better be on your toes as not to get squashed" takes up half a lane, can be loud and buzzy, semi tires come up to mid side window...

Wazabi Owner

04-01-2008, 09:26 PM

You sound like an Insight hater too. I drove one for two years and lived to tell about it.....:D

Chevette, if I could find one I'd jump on it (diesel only though that wasn't a rusted heap like ALL of them are and located within reach and NICE NICE NICE) I came very close to getting one a while back from eBay but something didn't seem right though it was real nice.

I've been looking at "used" Smarts on eBay, it just baffles my mind how people are getting caught up in the shiny new penny trend right now. :thumbdown:

LOL sounds like a chevette but change "ultra safe" to "you better be on your toes as not to get squashed" takes up half a lane, can be loud and buzzy, semi tires come up to mid side window...

nsgrossman

04-03-2008, 04:23 PM

I'd like to see some safety ratings on this car. I like that its small and efficient, but for its size I think it should get better then 40?! I wouldn't wanna drive it farther then a few miles, I'd be too worried about getting into a fender bender and being killed.

Hateful

04-03-2008, 04:37 PM

Every ounce of "Safety" gained from having a larger vehicle is taken from the safety of whoever it is that you are running into. Yesterday in my city,two children (walking) where struck by an SUV at an intersection. Small dent in the bumper and safer than I ever want to be.

RoadWarrior

04-03-2008, 04:43 PM

It's better than most minivans, trucks and SUVs for safety.

Nice safe minivan...@40MPH....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHFQHFDSs2Y&NR=1
Nice safe pickup truck...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB0araA0T_k&feature=related
Nice safe hummers...like the one in the back of the schoolbus at I guess city speeds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-YXCvCHBbA&feature=related
Horribly unsafe tin can of a Smart Car at 70mph...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8

JESSE69

04-03-2008, 09:26 PM

Smart Car 0-60 in 14.4 sec! I'd rather have the 09 Fit with the 1.3L MT configuration!

At least a Smart is better than a moped or motorcycle, but over $10,000 for it - it's too expensive!

trollbait

04-04-2008, 09:37 AM

The Smart can run on regular without a problem. Most modern engines that call for premium can adjust for lower octane. My parents Acura calls for the expensive stuff, but they still get 30mpg on the highway without trying on the regular they've always put in.

Slothman86

04-04-2008, 11:36 AM

NOT IMPRESSED

The answer is 'no'. I'm not impressed at all by ANY of the new vehicles that get 40MPG. And I have NO idea why people are clamoring for them.

I just keep saying to these people, in the 80s there were PLENTY of 40MPG cars, or get a 50MPG diesel Rabbit. The reason they're not around now is safety. Now I haven't looked at the figures and such to know how many less people are killed now a days and how much of the less deaths are associated to crumple zones and air bags, etc. But I'd like to see them. I mean the main reason people don't feel 'safe' in these cars now is because of SUVs, WHY does these things called SUVs exist? I live in a rural area and I can understanding wanting AWD but many cars have this now a days there's no reason to drive an aerodynamic brick and danger everyone else because it's too heavy and you can't control it.

On the other hand, I LOVE tiny cars. I'd love a Honda Beat or Mazda Autozam. And I don't think they get much over 40MPG either as an average. I'm not too sure why, probably just too small for proper aerodynamics and the engine is just too under powered for the load.

Like the fact the US gets a 1L with an absurdly low ratio trans, I bet the 1L has enough power to go 70MPH at 2500rpm, but with a higher diff ratio it wouldn't accelerate fast enough for americans.

Lastly, cars can be designed right, I mean 40MPG from a smart car is stupid, 30MPG from a Honda Beat is also kind of stupid, but somehow with all it's safety features and weight my 2002 Lexus ES300 can get 33MPG at 65MPH and THAT impresses me. Yes a Prius gets more than that but 45MPG is NOT impressive. The problem is the drivers. Sure I can get 33MPG in my lexus but I bet most people get 25MPG, they probably go 85MPH instead too. Just like the Prius owners, it's been proven that most people that drive like us on the board here could get 50-60MPG out of them and then they start to look more impressive.

and Blame the EPA!

Wazabi Owner

04-04-2008, 10:19 PM

Just got this email from Smart....so no more talk of crash tests not being advertised. I haven't looked at the results yet though.....wonder if they are good or bad:o ....just checked. Try comparing it to a Mini, Yaris and Accent - seems like the drivers of all those cars are in for a quick and instantaneous death too.

"Dear smart Enthusiast,

This week the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released its results of the smart fortwo frontal and side crash tests.

The results are consistent with our expectations and what we have been communicating to you. The NHTSA evaluations and video of the crash testing can be found on their website ? www.safercar.gov (http://www.safercar.gov). We encourage to you view the site.

The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety also performs crash testing on vehicles in the United States. We expect these results within 30 days and we will share the results with you once we receive their final report.

Safety is a top priority for Mercedes Benz and smart USA. All crash data is currently being reviewed by Mercedes-Benz engineers as we continue to look for ways to make the smart fortwo an even safer vehicle.

Warm Regards,

The smart USA Team "

Is anyone impressed by these 'smart' cars? [ Archive] - GasSavers.org - Helping You Save at the Pump