CD Article: 2008 Smart Fortwo Passion Coupe

[CD_Editor]

Test Drive:


The redesigned Smart now uses a gas engine, although it's as noisy as a diesel, says Assistant Editor Jil McIntosh. It's fun to drive, but assess your needs before you buy, she says.

 More:
Read the article | View the photos | All the Test Drives

[Prius]

The transmission is new, as well: it's a five-speed automatic that replaces the previous four-speed.

Psss.... it's a 5-speed clutchless manual that replaced a sixspeed clutchless manual, not a 4-speed automatic. 

[Cam]

I met two Smart car owners at the gas station the other day.  The diesel owner, a courier, was getting 85 miles to the gallon.  The gas owner, was getting 55. ! ! I can drive a Corolla and get 55.  Seems to defeat the whole purpose of the car.

[toolatecrew]

I can now officially say I think this car is just plain stupid.

If you want something small, fuel efficient, clunky to drive with a noisy engine that gets blown around by crosswinds go buy a used Pontiac Firefly. It will be cheaper,have better parts availability and has a back seat!

Other than maybe being able to fit into a shorter parking space than most cars I can't see a single reaon to buy this especially in today's climate of being environmentally freindly and or saving money on transportation costs. Yeah it gets good economy. But so do Corollas Civics Fits etc. None of which burn premium which makes the transportaion cost about the same. All those cars can transport 4 people if desired so the impact on the environment would be 1/2 that of the Smart becuase you can make 1/2 as amny trips.

Kind of amazing that in order to make it viable to sell a small economical commuter car in the US you have to make it less economical (different engine).

[Lemmie P.]

The "smart" is slow, noisy, easily buffeted by crosswinds, takes premium gas, has no back seat, and is expensive.  It is clearly a fad and there is no logical reason why anyone should waste their money on it. 

Additionally, according to the informedforlife.org site, which takes into consideration both NHTSA and IIHS testing plus other safety factors, the "smart" is the most dangerous car on the road, largely because of its weight and horrendous frontal crash data.  In short, it is a death trap on wheels.

Quite frankly, one should have his head examined for even considering the purchase of such a poorly contrived and executed piece of junk.

[Demosthenes X]

I met two Smart car owners at the gas station the other day.  The diesel owner, a courier, was getting 85 miles to the gallon.  The gas owner, was getting 55. ! ! I can drive a Corolla and get 55.  Seems to defeat the whole purpose of the car.

 

The old Smart I thought was silly, but at least it got fantastic fuel mileage and could be justified on that count.  A buddy of mine in high school commuted an hour or so to school every morning in a Smart and I think it cost him less than a dollar in fuel.

But now that the Smart's fuel economy lead has largely evaporated, what's the point?  For the same or less money than the Smart Passion, one can get a Yaris, Accent, or Fit, all with excellent fuel mileage, and all are infinitely more practical and more refined vehicles.  The only time I see a Smart being practical is in a terribly congested city environment (and to be fair, this is what they were designed for).  But even then, I'd take the more comfortable, more practical Fit over the rough, loud, jerky, two-seater Smart any day of the week...

[Wolfe]

Additionally, according to the informedforlife.org site, which takes into consideration both NHTSA and IIHS testing plus other safety factors, the "smart" is the most dangerous car on the road, largely because of its weight and horrendous frontal crash data.  In short, it is a death trap on wheels.

Quite frankly, one should have his head examined for even considering the purchase of such a poorly contrived and executed piece of junk.

This Informed for Life outfit sounds like one guy flogging his hobby horse. There's no indication that this organization consists of anyone besides Michael D. Dulberger, BE, MSME, MSM.

He penalizes all light weight cars categorically, however, the Smart is not comparable to a Geo Metro in terms of safety.


A Smart vs. 20 tons of concrete @ 70mph (112Km/h):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR6UozdBWRY

Like the Smart or not, and I don't, you have to acknowledge that it's an impressive bit of engineering.

[Demosthenes X]

Have you actually watched that video all the way through?  The Smart might look alright after a crash, but its passengers will not.  The lack of crumple zones means the body's internal organs decelerate from 70-0 instantly...  not a pretty picture.

They talk about this at the 5.01 mark in the video: "The chilling truth is, the people in side both cars would have been very unlikely to have survived."

[Wolfe]

Have you actually watched that video all the way through?  The Smart might look alright after a crash, but its passengers will not.  The lack of crumple zones means the body's internal organs decelerate from 70-0 instantly...  not a pretty picture.

They talk about this at the 5.01 mark in the video: "The chilling truth is, the people in side both cars would have been very unlikely to have survived."

Of course the human body cannot stand up to violent acceleration or deceleration, but all other cars have the same problem. Going from 70-0 in a fraction of a second will kill you no matter what you're in. That's simply beyond the limits of human physiology.

If you're in say an S-class then you've got a couple of extra feet of metal to crumple first and the deceleration forces on the occupants are reduced but is that enough to survive driving into a 20 ton concrete block at 70mph? I don't know but I suspect not.


The poster called the Smart "the most dangerous car on the road" and characterized the crash test data that the IIHS calls GOOD as being "horrendous." Hmm....

[dkerr24]

Not sure why they changed the Smart to a 1.0L gas engine (burning premium unleaded).  Maybe because they realized that not many metro centers in the US have diesel pumps at fuel stations?

I agree with you guys, the Smart would make far more sense with the diesel. 

Would I buy one?  No way.

I'll buy a Yaris, Fit, Versa, Matrix, Vibe etc.  More car for about the same $$.

[Demosthenes X]

If you're in say an S-class then you've got a couple of extra feet of metal to crumple first and the deceleration forces on the occupants are reduced but is that enough to survive driving into a 20 ton concrete block at 70mph? I don't know but I suspect not.

I think that crumple zone does make all the difference, though.  A hard shell is all well and good, but those crumple zones are probably more important in a high-speed collision...

[Wolfe]

If you're in say an S-class then you've got a couple of extra feet of metal to crumple first and the deceleration forces on the occupants are reduced but is that enough to survive driving into a 20 ton concrete block at 70mph? I don't know but I suspect not.

I think that crumple zone does make all the difference, though.  A hard shell is all well and good, but those crumple zones are probably more important in a high-speed collision...

I was under the impression that the main benefit of crumple zones was to absorb and deflect crash energy in such a way as to prevent intrusion into the passenger cabin allowing the restraint systems to deal with the main effects of the deceleration forces on the passengers.

I don't know what the maximum acceleration/deceleration we can handle is but I'm sure the info it out there on the net....

If an S-class were run into the 20 ton concrete block at 70mph...    hmm... the deflection of the block would be greater given the greater mass of the car, but even so 70-0 is still 70-0, in order to decrease the deceleration force on the occupants of the car you have to increase the time/distance over which they decelerate. Does the greater deflection of the block and longer crumple zone increase the time/distance enough to be meaningful? The S-class would still go from 70-0 in a fraction of a second. Either way you slice it it's a hell of a violent impact and something we'd all best avoid....

Besides that's an apples to oranges comparison anyway, what annoys me is the attitude that all small cars are by definition "a death trap on wheels" as the poster put it earlier. There have been plenty of Smart cars sold here and in Europe and I haven't heard of a rash of deaths associated with them. Small cars are a lot safer and better designed than they were before. If you ran a Geo Metro into the concrete block at 70mph would there be anything recognizable left at all? I still see Metros on the road.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzTP6cMLwRY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53j2wl16Ozw&feature=related
The 1998 model does much better, but these are supposedly done at 35mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bz3oLN93HA&feature=related


I wouldn't want a Smart anyway but that's because of all the reasons you mentioned in your first post above. All of the other trade offs inherent in the car would rule it out before I'd get to considering safety.

[rrocket]

This is not the deathtrap people think it is.  This car has been tested and tested and tested in Europe.  There are many thousands in use.  And the NHTSA just wrapped up their testing on the car for USA.

PRESS RELEASE:

First Institute crash tests of Smart car: diminutive two-seater earns top ratings for protecting people in front & side crashes

ARLINGTON, VA - The Smart car is getting a lot of attention for its small size and style, and now it's earning impressive crash test ratings. In recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests, the 2008 Smart Fortwo, the smallest car for sale in the US market, earned the top rating of good for front and side crash protection. Its seat/head restraints earned the second highest rating of acceptable for protection against whiplash in rear impacts.

Smart Fortwo is classified a microcar, meaning it's smaller even than minicars. Weighing about 1,800 pounds, the Smart is more than 3 feet shorter and almost 700 pounds lighter than a Mini Cooper. It weighs about a third as much as one of the heaviest vehicles the Institute has tested, the BMW X5, a midsize SUV. As the price of fuel climbs and tougher federal fuel economy requirements kick in, auto companies are expected to introduce more small vehicles to the market. The Smart is the smallest car the Institute ever has tested.

"The big question from consumers is, 'How safe is it?'", says Institute president Adrian Lund. "All things being equal in safety, bigger and heavier is always better. But among the smallest cars, the engineers of the Smart did their homework and designed a high level of safety into a very small package."

[xviper]

This is not the deathtrap people think it is.  This car has been tested and tested and tested in Europe.  There are many thousands in use.  And the NHTSA just wrapped up their testing on the car for USA.

Exactly!  People see how tiny it is and just make the incorrect assumption that it's unsafe, then they go and cite the exampe of "what if" a Smart got smacked by a Lincoln Navigator?  Everything's relative.  "What if" a Navigator got smacked by a cement truck?  Does a Navigator driver go through life worrying about cement trucks?  Should a Smart car driver go through life worrying about Navigators?
I drive a motorcycle and by comparison, the Smart car is a rolling padded cell.  I wouldn't do so well if I ran into a Smart car at 100 kph.  Should I go through life worrying about Smart cars when I'm on a motorcycle?  Or should we all be driving cement trucks?

[rrocket]

Or take yours (and James) S2000 for example.  I don't think either of those would fare terribly well against a Navigator....

[xviper]

Or take yours (and James) S2000 for example.  I don't think either of those would fare terribly well against a Navigator....

Noooooo, please don't tell me that.  Now I gotta stop driving it!   

[rrocket]

^^^^I'll take it off your hands for $100 if you can't drive it anymore...

[xviper]

   As much as it scares me to think I could become a flattened piece of meat, I think I'll risk it.
I'm actually debating at the moment to either find a good used diesel Smart (2006 model) or wait for the new Toyota IQ.  I don't think we've seen the end to the rising fuel prices.

[Serniter]

Wouldn't the safety of any vehicle on the road be a function of the traffic composition? If you're driving between semis a Smart is going to be unsafe. If you're surrounded by Yari, no problem. Unless you have a way of predicting the average weight of the traffic on your route, you have no way of telling. On my route, I'd guess the smart would be wayy below average.

Does the Smart decelerate from 70 to 0 mph in a second on collision with the block? I'd reckon its a fraction of a second. An S-class may take relatively longer. For example 1/10 of a second vs 1/2 second is enough to multiply the acceleration on your organs.

[Mitlov]

Remember that the IIHS says you cannot compare ratings for vehicles that weigh differently (that are more than 250 lbs different, if I recall correctly).  So you can't just look at the Smart's "good" rating and say it's as safe as a Civic or an A6 or whatever. 

The NHTSA gives actual measurements in addition to its meaningless subjective rating (stars or "good" or whatever).  CLICK HERE for their Smart Fortwo test.  CLICK HERE for their Toyota Corolla test.

FRONTAL IMPACT

Driver head injury criterion:  390 Corolla, 531 Smart.
Passenger head injury criterion: 280 Corolla, 644 Smart.
Driver femur load (lbs): 321/531 Corolla, 1282/1461 Smart.
...you get the idea.

SIDE IMPACT, FRONT SEAT

Head injury criterion: 190 Corolla, 347 Smart.
Thoracic trauma index: 35 Corolla, 57 Smart.

ROLLOVER
Corolla chance of roll-over: 12%
Smart chance of roll-over: 21%.