[Sparkletron]

http://smartcar.com/

A common site in Europe, perhaps, but on the streets of Manhattan this little guy causes gawking-related accidents.

-S

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

They have been around for quite a bit here in Toronto. Wouldn't want to get in an accident with one of those.

[GSixZero]

I really like the Smart Roadster. It's not super pretty, but sweet for your average econobox.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

I really like the Smart Roadster. It's not super pretty, but sweet for your average econobox.

]

Wow, the hatchback is really nice! That other one looks like a Miata.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Wow, the hatchback is really nice! That other one looks like a Miata.

A Miata, Del Sol, S2000 test tube baby.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

I really like the Smart Roadster. It's not super pretty, but sweet for your average econobox.

I like both... much better than most of the eco friendly cars. Most are ultra conservative.

[ManOfSteal]

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7

A Miata, Del Sol, S2000 test tube baby.

I'd have said "evil clone" of an old Miata and an NX2000. But the hatchback IS sweet. Too bad they aren't here in Texas...

[ambush]

they're in montréal since a couple of months

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'd have said "evil clone" of an old Miata and an NX2000. But the hatchback IS sweet. Too bad they aren't here in Texas...

Yeah, wow. I would drive one of those.

[GSixZero]

The reason they're not in the US much is that they don't meet Federal highway crash test standards. They were designed to be around town cars, not cruising down I-70 at 85 miles per hour.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

The reason they're not in the US much is that they don't meet Federal highway crash test standards. They were designed to be around town cars, not cruising down I-70 at 85 miles per hour.

They don't have highways in other parts of the world?

[ghporter]

U.S. highway safety standards are pretty tough, and most cars in the world don't have a chance of meeting them. A friend related a crash he saw in Japan. It wasn't pretty. No windshield safety glass requirement, no collapsing steering column, no crush zone or direction of the engine under the passenger compartment. He said it looked like two aluminum beer cans got smashed together at high speed. U.S. standards assume somebody is going to see what the car will do, no matter what the car is designed for.

Conversely, trucks are not required to meet such rigid standards, thus, not only do large SUVs (which are classified as trucks) smash smaller vehicles quite effectively, they don't protect their passengers nearly as well as cars do. The result is standard cars that get destroyed beyond recognition and Escalade occupants that get battered do death as they flop around and are sometimes ejected from their "cool SUV."

Of course, I have "nothing but love" for SUVs...

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by ghporter

U.S. highway safety standards are pretty tough, and most cars in the world don't have a chance of meeting them.

Great, but can't they just make them illegal to take em on the highway?

[effgee]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

..., not cruising down I-70 at 85 miles per hour.

Whoa - you go that fast? Call the NHRA - quick!

And on topic - smart is a division of the DaimlerChrysler AG and the cars being sold in the US come into the country through a 3rd party importer who - by now - will (most likely) have received all the necessary paperwork (NHTSA, EPA, etc.) - how the heck else would he be able to sell those eggs on wheels?. Here's the link from last year.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by effgee

Whoa - you go that fast? Call the NHRA - quick!

No, that's not fast, but that fiberglass house-of-cards smartcar will fold up pretty quick when you hit the wall going that speed.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Great, but can't they just make them illegal to take em on the highway?

Actually, they make it illegal to import them if they don't meet standards.

When Honda first marketed a 4-wheel vehicle in the States (it had a 600cc engine!) it was banned from highways because it was seen as underpowered. But that engine had torque like you wouldn't believe, and after about a year, the Hiway Traffic Safety people relented-while Honda came up with a stronger, and higher revving engine. I remember when Geo marketed the "Sprint." It had a 3 cylinder normally aspirated engine, and the one I rented (yes, rented! I was pretty poor then) was able to accelerate uphill at highway speeds-with the air conditioning running. I was amazed.

Now a car has to meet collision standards, but just about everything else goes.

[Sparkletron]

The Smart Car EXCEEDS all US safety standards. It has dual front and side air bags, collapsible steering column, extremely efficient crush zones, frangible elements, etc. It scored very well in impact tests. The reason it's not sold in the US has nothing to do with safety standards whatsoever; the manufacturer simply does not believe there is a market for this car in the US. And they're probably right. But that may change in a few years when gas prices continue to climb with no end in sight. This car gets 60-75 mpg and has the same range as any other car.

-S

[Sparkletron]

Double post...

[broxy5]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

They have been around for quite a bit here in Toronto. Wouldn't want to get in an accident with one of those.

Actually, a friend of mine bought one, and we were looking at a website with crash test results. I don't think I'd want to be hit by one! The whole thing is a crash capsule, and it just destroyed the cars they were chucking them at. Granted, they don't weight a whole lot, so you in your little capsule would get tossed pretty good.

[Sparkletron]

Conventional wisdom says that if you're going to be in a collision, you want to be in the largest vehicle possible. I haven't seen the most recent stats but the last time I checked this wisdom was reflected in the data. However, it wasn't as dramatic as you would expect, mainly because people who drive larger vehicles like SUVs tend to drive faster and with less regard for road conditions. So, ironically, the extra metal doesn't help all that much as it is offset by poorer driving habits. Now if you happen to drive your SUV as though you're in a subcompact then you've got it made...

-S

[Mastrap]

Sparkletron is right, the Smart exceeds all US safety standards by quite a margin. This little thing is a common sight on the motorways in Germany where both the traffic and the speed people travel at (no speed limit) are not for the faint of heart.

Whilst a small car will always be at a disadvantage in a crash in a heavier car Smart has come up with some pretty cool technology. In a crash the impact force is actually bypassing the passenger compartment, using the rear crumple zone to absorb energy even in a front crash. Very cool stuff.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Sparkletron

The reason it's not sold in the US has nothing to do with safety standards whatsoever; the manufacturer simply does not believe there is a market for this car in the US.

-S

Can't blame them. How often you hear SMART and US in the same sentence?
The seem to have quite the market in Canada though.

[budster101]

No market in the USA?

Population:
Canada: 32,805,041 (July 2005 est.)
USA: 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)

I think everyone on MacNN knows you HATE America. No need to constantly restate that.
It shlould be a sticky.

I don't know why you have not been banned.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by budster101

No market in the USA?

Population:
Canada: 32,805,041 (July 2005 est.)
USA: 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)

I think everyone on MacNN knows you HATE America. No need to constantly restate that.
It shlould be a sticky.

I don't know why you have not been banned.

a) you can't take a joke.
b) population doesn't matter, it is market that matters
c) why should someone be banned for having an opinion different then you?
d) you hate gays, I don't know why you haven't been banned.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by budster101

No market in the USA?

Population:
Canada: 32,805,041 (July 2005 est.)
USA: 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)

I think everyone on MacNN knows you HATE America. No need to constantly restate that.
It shlould be a sticky.

I don't know why you have not been banned.

Oh cram a flag in it. No one is bashing your precious US so maybe you should relax a little. You seem awfully tightly wound lately.

From what I've heard the majority of buyers are not young people but middle-ages folks feeling the high gas prices and looking for something smaller. Right now the US is eating up the large family SUV and like it or not Canadians have a slightly different mindset than most americans. Consider also how centralized Canada's market is compared to the US, consider other factors. Heck it might be manufactured by terrorists for all I know. Evidently they have some viable business reason for not selling to the US yet an I'm willing to bet it isn't anti-americanisim (absurd as that is).

[budster101]

You are a jack*ss, and not ever very funny as this is a constant thing.

You hate straights.
You hate the USA.
You can't shut it ever.

I don't hate gays. You just happen to be gay.

You don't have any idea what young people in the USA like. They are all buying RICE burners and souping them up. My brother-in-law has two of them. The market in the USA is far bigger for this type of car.

You are a broken record, and I'm sick of it.
You start anti-religous and anti-USA threads constantly.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by budster101

You are a jack*ss, and not ever very funny as this is a constant thing.

You hate straights.
You hate the USA.
You can't shut it ever.

I don't hate gays. You just happen to be gay.

You don't have any idea what young people in the USA like. They are all buying RICE burners and souping them up. My brother-in-law has two of them. The market in the USA is far bigger for this type of car.

You are a broken record, and I'm sick of it.
You start anti-religous and anti-USA threads constantly.

I only have straight friends, hardly any gay ones
I visit the US often and have dated Americans
I don't care what you are sick of. Take a hike or ignore me then. I'm not living my life your way.

[storer]

Smart cars are a good laugh when you see them in Australia. Probably a wise choice, but they're treated as a bit of a joke 'cos they are so rare.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

They have been around for quite a bit here in Toronto. Wouldn't want to get in an accident with one of those.

There are alot of them here in Vancouver too. And I have seen a couple in crashes. Those things are tough!!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by budster101

No market in the USA?

Population:
Canada: 32,805,041 (July 2005 est.)
USA: 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)

I think everyone on MacNN knows you HATE America. No need to constantly restate that.
It shlould be a sticky.

I don't know why you have not been banned.

When the cars where announced in Canada last year that is what the Company said, that they believe the market in Canada was better. Small little diesel cars in the US never sold well. Americans love there gas guzzling SUV's. Don’t turn this into an Anti American thing because a company decides the US is not the right market.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Sparkletron

The Smart Car EXCEEDS all US safety standards. It has dual front and side air bags, collapsible steering column, extremely efficient crush zones, frangible elements, etc. It scored very well in impact tests. The reason it's not sold in the US has nothing to do with safety standards whatsoever; the manufacturer simply does not believe there is a market for this car in the US. And they're probably right. But that may change in a few years when gas prices continue to climb with no end in sight. This car gets 60-75 mpg and has the same range as any other car.

-S

Indeed. Just about every new European car exceeds US safety standards by far. And the other way around: all American cars sold in Europe score very poorly on crash tests here.

The smart is probably one of the toughest little cars around. And it's really zippy, a friend of mine's mother ownes one. A yellow one . It's amazing in cities, on the highway it maxes out at 130km/h.

The smart roadster looks very very cool IMO but it's soooo slow, even the Brabus version is slow and that one costs a small fortune. But it's fun to drive.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

I really like the Smart Roadster. It's not super pretty, but sweet for your average econobox.

That V6 Biturbo, isn't your average econobox
You can't buy these unfortunately.

The company I work for makes the convertible tops for these things and we've had a model in our lobby for a couple years. The first car we could get in our lobby without taking the building's front doors off!!

I took it for a spin awhile back - just through the office park - but it was hella fun to drive. But no way would I take that thing out on I-75, though. Even if it is rated pretty safe, there's too many giant SUVs and semis around to smoosh me.

[Sparkletron]

There are a lot of preconceptions in the US regarding small cars (they are not safe, they have no pickup, etc.). This car really did confound my expectations (first and foremost, that it actually has a motor in there somewhere!). When sitting in the Smart Car you are surprisingly high up; you are looking down at most other cars. Although acceleration from 0-60 is not impressive, the car is surprisingly zippy from 0-30. So getting on a highway is no problem. Passing someone on the highway at high speeds is a problem. In a way, the car's limitations in this regard merely encourage better driving habits.

I noticed three negatives. First, the A/C sucked unless we were really moving. The A/C did not work in stop-and-go traffic. It's hot and humid here in the city so I could not help but notice... Second, leg room was OK but a bit unusual because my legs had to conform to the arch of the tire. My legs were over the front tire. Third, the car engine was a somewhat noisey.

Regarding DaimlerChrysler's market analysis, I must admit that everywhere we went, people came up to us in "shock and awe" and to ask questions. They all wanted to know where they could buy one. On the other hand, there is a significant majority in the US who believe that any vehicle smaller than an SUV is a glorified golf cart...

-S

[ajprice]

I would have got one of these (the standard smart car, not the roadster) if there had been one for sale in the area a few weeks ago. The only one I could find was left hand drive, so I left it alone and got a Skoda instead.

And that red one is a Brabus V6 bi-turbo version, nowhere near standard. It basically has 2 Smart engines put together to make a 1.4 V6 with 2 turbos. They built 10 of them, kept them to themselves except for letting a few journalists have a go.

[Troll]

There is a market for these cars in the US.

US car customiser ZAP has been selling them for a while now. They do exceed US safety standards and you can buy them in the US. ZAP recently put in an order for $1Bn worth of Smarts ... and Daimler Chrysler rejected the order. Smart does plan on launching in the States at some point though and rumour has it that this is why they rejected the ZAP order.

Daimler Chrysler reckons the Smart is as safe as the S-Class. They've done a few tests of crashes between a Smart and an S-Class.


Auto & Motor Sport in Germany did the same thing. Check out the video. It looks worse for the Smart than it really was. The dummies in the Smart were no worse for wear than those in the S-Class and the Smart was drivable whereas the S wasn't. They get this right by having a very stiff body shell for the Smart and very small crumple zones: http://www.off-road.com/mbenz/videos/Sclass_Smart.avi

Other news is that the Smart Roadster is being phased out!

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by Sparkletron

Conventional wisdom says that if you're going to be in a collision, you want to be in the largest vehicle possible.

Partially true. The problem with this idea is that SUVs are big, and bigger = better, right?

WRONG, in the case of SUVs. With their ultra rigid frames and chassis, built to perform decently offroad and impress auto journalist goons, they don't disspate as much energy in a crash, thus transferring MORE energy to their occupants. Also, SUVS sit higher, and have a much higher CG, and have weak roofs thanks to a standard that's been outdated for over 20 years (federal roof standards were last set in 1972).

The safest car is a heavier, LOWER car with a very strong passenger cage and crumple zones front and back with great handling, acceleration, and braking. That's hte ultimate combination of accident avoidance with bigger is better.

[budster101]

and... people don't buy SUVs for the capacity to haul things as well as people and their stuff.

How much stuff will your "heavy, lower car with crumple zones, etc. etc. etc.

You are an extremist, a fascist, and an ant-SUV Nazi/bigot. You deserved to have that 44 oz cup of soda tossed on you. You are more dangerous because you think you know more than you do.

If I own a classic car, according to you, I can only drive it occassionally, and not every day.

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by budster101

and... people don't buy SUVs for the capacity to haul things as well as people and their stuff.

How much stuff will your "heavy, lower car with crumple zones, etc. etc. etc.

You are an extremist, a fascist, and an ant-SUV Nazi/bigot. You deserved to have that 44 oz cup of soda tossed on you. You are more dangerous because you think you know more than you do.

If I own a classic car, according to you, I can only drive it occassionally, and not every day.

And whenever I see an SUV on the road, how often is it full of people or stuff or towing something?

Answer: ALMOST NEVER. 99% of the time I see an SUV driving around it has... ONE PERSON IN IT. No cargo. No trailer.

And if you own a classic car, you probably would understand that you wouldn't want to drive it everyday, but since you don't and you're too ****ing ignorant to understand, I'll just tell you to go **** yourself.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally Posted by budster101

If I own a classic car, according to you, I can only drive it occassionally, and not every day.

I'm starting to think you and Zimphire might be related

[ajprice]

budster101, have you taken your meds today? I'm not for the Chelsea Tractors either, but the lower safety standards of SUV's has been proved in crash tests. Now go pour 44oz of soda over yourself, you need to cool down .

Anyway, back on topic. Smart cars are pretty safe cars, one TV show here, 5th Gear, i think, drove one (by remote control) into a concrete block at 70mph, and did the same thing with a Vauxhall Corsa hatchback. The corsa was a complete wreck, on the Smart, the doors still opened afterwards. You would be dead in either car, but find me any car that would keep you alive if you drove into concrete at 70mph.

[budster101]

You are directing your comments towards the wrong person. I'm not the Anti-anything Nazi. If you like your small car, great. The SUV drivers are at fault for driving beyond the vehicle's capacity, and I never disputed that. The claim that the SUV is more dangerous is just nonsense. It's the driver.

He wants everyone to stop driving them. Maybe he needs to take meds, or get off of them...

I am all for FREEDOM of choice, not dictating who drives what, and when. You do read these posts right, or are you just blinded by pettiness like the jerk you are supporting?

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by budster101

You are an extremist, a fascist, and an ant-SUV Nazi/bigot. You deserved to have that 44 oz cup of soda tossed on you.

Is this really ****ing necessary ?

[budster101]

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7

I'm starting to think you and Zimphire might be related

Was that necessary?

I'm starting to think this POWERTRIPPIN guy *is* Ca$h.

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by budster101

The claim that the SUV is more dangerous is just nonsense.

I'll type this out slowly so you can understand. IT. IS. FACT.

SUVS:

1. Handle worse than cars
2. Brake poorly, in comparison to most cars
3. Accelerate poorly, in comparison to most cars
4. Have high centers of gravity, in compared to cars
5. Have weak roofs that cave inwards during a rollover
6. Have very stiff frames that transmit more energy to their occupants
7. Get **** MPG.

The only nonsense in this thread is your posts unwilling to admit that a vehicle that has inferior handling, braking, acceleration, stability, safety, and mpg is ... in fact.... >drumroll< inferior.

If you still think otherwise, fine, just please don't reproduce and spread your awful genes.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally Posted by budster101

I'm starting to think this POWERTRIPPIN guy *is* Ca$h.

Yes. He is.

[Sparkletron]

You're right; a heavy car with a low center of gravity and frangible elements would be safest. But you're not going to get 60-70 mph with a heavy car.

IMHO, most accidents could be avoided if everyone just followed the fast- and slow-lane concept. Since they don't teach this anymore, here's how it works... The left lane is the fast lane, the passing lane. The right lane is the slow lane, the exit or cruising lane. You don't have to be passing someone to be in the fast lane, but if you are in the fast lane and someone wants to pass you, move to the slow lane and let them pass. Conversely, do not tailgate people in the slow lane because you want to pass; move to the fast lane instead.

I like this concept because it realistically assumes that people are going to speed and deals with it. It also makes on-ramps safer because the speeders will be in the leftmost lane.

-S

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Sparkletron

You're right; a heavy car with a low center of gravity and frangible elements would be safest. But you're not going to get 60-70 mph with a heavy car.

IMHO, most accidents could be avoided if everyone just followed the fast- and slow-lane concept. Since they don't teach this anymore, here's how it works... The left lane is the fast lane, the passing lane. The right lane is the slow lane, the exit or cruising lane. You don't have to be passing someone to be in the fast lane, but if you are in the fast lane and someone wants to pass you, move to the slow lane and let them pass. Conversely, do not tailgate people in the slow lane because you want to pass; move to the fast lane instead.

I like this concept because it realistically assumes that people are going to speed and deals with it. It also makes on-ramps safer because the speeders will be in the leftmost lane.

-S

Well, that's how it's always been over here

[budster101]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

I'll type this out slowly so you can understand. IT. IS. FACT.

SUVS:

1. Handle worse than cars
2. Brake poorly, in comparison to most cars
3. Accelerate poorly, in comparison to most cars
4. Have high centers of gravity, in compared to cars
5. Have weak roofs that cave inwards during a rollover
6. Have very stiff frames that transmit more energy to their occupants
7. Get **** MPG.

The only nonsense in this thread is your posts unwilling to admit that a vehicle that has inferior handling, braking, acceleration, stability, safety, and mpg is ... in fact.... >drumroll< inferior.

If you still think otherwise, fine, just please don't reproduce and spread your awful genes.

If you drive safely, then none of this matters. I never disputed any FACTS, only your Nazi, Fascist like behavior towards SUVs.

Your constant personal attacks is sickening, since you have no argument, this is your last resort.

I'm for FREEDOM of choice, responsible driving, and arresting people like you who attack drivers of cars they don't like. I'll type this slowly.

YOU. HAVE. PSYCHOLOGICAL. PROBLEMS.