Hi Robert – My name is Karah Street and I work for a PR firm that represents smart USA. I see that you have written about the new crash test conducted with the smart fortwo by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in which the smart for two was paired against a Mercedes C-Class. Two other cars were paired with larger vehicles from the same automaker (Honda Fit vs. Accord, and Toyota Yaris vs. Camry). What you may not know is that this test represents a type of crash that is rare and extreme — less than 1% of all accidents can compare to this type of test — and it is neither recognized nor required by federal safety regulators. By pitting “big vs. small,” this test seems to have one goal: to imply that bigger, heavier cars are always safer.
The smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government safety standards, including earning a five-star side crash rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the highest ratings for front and side crashes in the IIHS’s own barrier test. As I mentioned earlier, this test unfairly singles out only mini and micro cars, rather than testing vehicles in all segments, big and small.
This test also does not address where we are heading as a society, where people are choosing small yet safe cars for many reasons (fuel economy, smaller carbon footprint, low cost of ownership). smart USA has created a new website, safeandsmart.com, where smart drivers are sharing their own real-life stories of how smart’s advanced safety features helped keep them safe.
I also encourage you to speak with the following organizations for their take on the crash test: 1. Eli Hopson, Washington Representative for Clean Vehicles, Union of Concerned Scientists 2. John DeCicco, Senior Fellow – Automotive Strategies, Environmental Defense Fund 3. Dan Becker, Director, Safe Climate Campaign. For an official statement from smart USA, please visit smartusa.com or read an official blog by smart USA’s president, Dave Schembri. Please let me know if you need any other resources (images, video, etc) from me. Thank you for your time. Karah Street
A C-Class is not that big a car. How does the smart compare to and E-Class or S-Class? Or an ML, pickup truck or semi? And the fact that the smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government safety standards, is no defense against a lawsuit. Just ask Detroit.
I just wanted to type smart while resisting the urge to capitalize the first letter.
Thank you.
The list of “organizations” she provided is scary enough. If it was up to any one of those organizations we would ALL be sharing micro mini cars because nobody would be allowed to own one of your own. To much of a “carbon footprint” ya know. ugh…..
Ahhh, yes !!
Microblogging
http://www.sniffpetrol.com/2009/04/14/car-companies-up-shitter-creek/
You cannot argue against the Laws of Physics: a bigger vehicle fares better than a small one in a collision.
That’s why I will only ride in a tank from now on. I’m trying to get the biggest one out there.
Sounds like PR firm bullshit to me. Let’s redo the crash, and instead of the dummy, see which car “Karah Street” will volunteer to ride in?
The smart was tested many years ago against an S class, it did quite well, even though its the previous generation.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-mercedes-s-class-vs-smart.html
The report just stated the obvious that physics rules all, but honestly all of these cars went through organizations like ADAC just fine. I’m not sure what they are grasping for here, other than to perpetuate the American myth that you must buy big to be safe.
where people are choosing small yet safe cars for many reasons (fuel economy, smaller carbon footprint, low cost of ownership).
Yes, people are chosing cars for those reasons, but the Smart is not a leader in any of those. Fuel economy isn’t that good in a Smart, thus neither is its carbon footprint. The things are overpriced so low cost of ownership is out. These things are fashion symbols, nothing else. In Europe they make some sense where dense cities have zero parking space, but in N. America people would be better off in a Fit or Civic or Prius.
The smart was tested many years ago against an S class, it did quite well, even though its the previous generation.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-mercedes-s-class-vs-smart.html
The report just stated the obvious that physics rules all, but honestly all of these cars went through organizations like ADAC just fine. I’m not sure what they are grasping for here, other than to perpetuate the American myth that you must buy big to be safe.
I have seen videos showing this test and Mercedes own internal test. The problem is that seeing the video only gives you anecdotal evidence that the smart is “safe” in a crash with these vehicles. They don’t tell you the HIC (Head Injury Criterion), femur load, chest compression, and neck extension the dummies experienced in these tests. IIHS takes these empirical values into account when providing their ratings, as does NHTSA. The Germans can stand there and say “see how the shape holds together” all they want, but it means bupkis until they publish the recorded dummy variables. IIHS has done that and the vehicle performs poorly.
If smart doesn’t like it, they can take their ball and go home. In fact, I wish they would take their overpriced, underperforming (in every aspect possible) crapbox and go home. Why anyone would buy a smart over any other vehicle out there is beyond me, save for the fashion statement.
I think I’d rather take my chances in my TrailBlazer or Mustang versus anything smart has to offer. Even if you take mass out of the equation, there’s not a whole lot of crush space in the front of that tiny thing, where’s all the crash energy going, and where does the engine go in an impact? That ridiculous little car was made for cities where traffic is horrible and parking is scarce, and it’s short so it can park “nose to curb” and not stick out. Every car has its compromises, unfortunately small ones aren’t as safe just like large ones aren’t as economical, the buyer has to make their decision based on what compromises they’re willing to make.
Will somebody please crash test a Corvette into a Hummer and get back to us with the results. Or a Hummer into a Mack truck. This is not news. It’s the Law of Gross Tonnage at work.
Go drive a Smart….then go drive a base Honda Fit, a Nissan Versa (for LESS money!!) Toyota Yaris, Scion Xa/d and realize how much more car you can get for about the same money. The Smart has room for only two people, virtually no cargo room, is bog-slow off the line, does not get great gas mileage compared to the other cars I’ve mentioned and is an overall poor driving experience, especially here in the states with their cantankerous semi-automatic transmission. Regardless of any crash test results, if you fairly cross-shop the Smart with several other vehicles at the same price point you will take home something other than a Smart.
I’m guessing you’ve all seen the crash results pitting a Ford F-150 against a Mini in a same-scenario accident. If not, you’re better off in the Mini. Link below…
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
Solely to reiterate that size does not always equal safety.
200k-min wrote:
April 14th, 2009 at 9:22 am
“Yes, people are chosing cars for those reasons, but the Smart is not a leader in any of those. Fuel economy isn’t that good in a Smart,”
Incorrect. The smart fortwo has the highest EPA fuel economy of any non-hybrid.
“thus neither is its carbon footprint.”
Also incorrect. The smart fortwo is classified as an Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle by the California Air Resources Board for its extremely low exhaust emissions. It is also certified by EPA as a “Smartway” vehicle, which indicates good environmental performance, placing it among the “greenest” vehicles on the market.
In addition to the carbon footprint under operation, there is the very low carbon footprint in the manufacturing process. Not having hundreds of pounds worth of toxic batteries also helps keep its environmental impact low when compared to a hybrid. So does its extensive use of recyclable plastic body panels and their environmentally friendly finishing process.
“The things are overpriced so low cost of ownership is out.”
Now you are just making stuff up. The smart fortwo coupe starts at under $12K and the convertible starts at under $17K, making it the least expensive convertible in the U.S.
I don’t know if your girlfriend left you for some guy with a smart fortwo or had some other personal tragedy involving one, but I really don’t understand why you feel the need to post lies about them.
I’am an old (62) fart, so I grew in the marvelous heyday of Life magazine, a phenom of its time that people now can’t imagine. It was the way you saw images then. One WWII issue had step-by-step pictures of an appendicitis operation, and a year later was used by a submarine medic on a sub deep in the enemy Pacific Ocean to successfully do one. The last page of each issue was an unusual, even incredible, picture. One showed the aftermath of a headon between a rhinoceros and a ’53 Chevy (both were totalled).
But back to the subject: one memorable Last Word image was of a crash test staged by one of early VW dealers, when there was much talk of the fragility of the then new and dinky Beetle. This crash test was of a PeterBilt t-boning a Cadillac. It was a high shutter-speed shot: the PeterBilt is halfway through hammering the Caddy into pancake amidst a cloud of glass and metal pieces, and there isn’t a dent on the Peterbilt.
It doesn’t matter how big you are. There’s always somebody bigger or faster. And as a newsmagazine memorably said in the early days of compacts: “Newtonian physics is a two way street: bigger also means slower to turn, to stop and avoid”
well what do you know…someone’s doing their job out there.
There are a lot of justifications to buy a car. Price, style, comfort, power, handling, fuel cost, reliability, environmental footprint, safety, etc. Each car will have its strengths and weaknesses. Each car buyer will have different priorities.
For me, the SmartCar is penny-wise and lb. foolish. I live in Houston — land of the SUVs and pick up trucks. Simple physics says you don’t want to get into a wreck in Houston in a SmartCar.
That’s why I call it DumbCar.
I would rather get nailed by a semi in a Smart car than a 76 Caddy.
Engineering over mass, please. Mass is nice enough, side airbags are better.
On a side note, the Smart may have the highest fuel economy of any street legal vehicle, but for it’s size it’s pretty weak. I wouldn’t be too surprised if you could fit a Smart in the back of a Fit, it’s that much smaller. For a car that size, it needs to be doing 50 or 60 mpg.
Anyways.
We, as a society? I just bought an Escalade. I may live in a bubble but I believe the best selling vehicle on the planet is an F-150. Maybe the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety should have done a more realistic Smart car verses F-150 crash test?
“I’m guessing you’ve all seen the crash results pitting a Ford F-150 against a Mini in a same-scenario accident. If not, you’re better off in the Mini. “
Okay, what about when the F-150 crashes into the Mini. Low mass into a fixed wall should fare better than higher mass into the same fixed barrier, but ram the 2 into each other, and it becomes a different story. An F-150 should decimate a Mini, just based on physics. The heavier vehicle wins, and the fact the the F-150 would hit the Cooper considerably higher than its bumper would also cause the Mini’s crash structure to not work exactly as it was designed. I’d rather be in the pickup in that crash.
F150 the best selling vehicle in the world?
You need to check that – it used to be in the US, but I haven’t seen the recent sales figures – I know late last year it was toppled by the Civic and Camry both in the US alone for at least 3 months straight.
No matter what Smart may say, the fact that the crumple zone on a Smart car is 6-12″ compared to several feet on even most compact cars sold in N. America means that it will always be at a disadvantage in an accident in terms of forces on the occupants. Fifth Gear rammed a Smart into a concrete barrier at 70MPH which is a somewhat similar sort of incident. The structure holds together very well, the concern is the load on the occupants, in the Fifth Gear test the verdict was that the occupants were unlikely to have lived…
The best selling vehicle in the world is the Toyota Corola with 35 million sold since 1966, the F150 is #2 with 32 million sold since 1948.
FishTank : I’m guessing you’ve all seen the crash results pitting a Ford F-150 against a Mini in a same-scenario accident. If not, you’re better off in the Mini. Link below…
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
This might be the most cherry picked crash comparo test in the history of automobiles. That’s a new MINI against late 1990s F150, specifically choosing the super cab with no B-pillar. The 2004+ models had a good rating from the IIHS.
If we’re gonna pit old and new, why not put a Toyota Previa against a Smart car? That’ll be fun!
At least the article states this isn’t an indication of how the two would fare if crashed against each other. Which is still cold comfort for the guy in the MINI.
@ FishTank
The link you’ve left references a 2001 F-150 (http://www.leasetips.com/f150crashtest.htm). Watch a movie: gruesome: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6b2_1186865238&p=1
From 2004-08 F-150s crumple up very, very well in head ons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LkAzt_0qIg&feature=related
As does the new 2009.
@ Alex and Orian
I stand corrected. I don’t know the answer to this but who has the most popular vehicle by number of vehicles that are still running on the road?
Fifth Gear rammed a Smart into a concrete barrier at 70MPH which is a somewhat similar sort of incident. The structure holds together very well, the concern is the load on the occupants, in the Fifth Gear test the verdict was that the occupants were unlikely to have lived…
They did the same with an Corsa, which despite the presence of a “real” hood was subject to the same result. Basically, ram anything into a concrete barrier at over 100km/h and the deceleration will cause real harm.
The point of that test, or any, is dealing with excess kinetic energy. In head-on vehicle-on-vehicle, the smaller car is going to eat the difference. In the case of a T-Boning, it works somewhat differently: if the strike is indirect and you spin out, good. If it’s direct to the middle of the car, not so much because the car getting T’ed eats much of the force of impact.
And then there’s what happens when you hit a tree. A reasonable-size speciment (say 2″ in diameter) with utterly destroy even a very large and heavy car because of how focused the area of crash is.
Point being, the original poster is right: head-on vehicle-on-vehicle is rare. More problematic is crash compatibility, where a small car is struck above the safety cage by a larger and taller vehicle. More problematic still are the legions of idiots who don’t wear their seatbelts, drink and/or drive excessively quickly for the road and conditions.
This IIHS test is a PR exercise to encourage people to drive compatible cars. It would be nice if “compatible” could be translated into “smaller and lower-bumpered” but I feel that’s too much to hope for.
She is basically right.
The test was pointless, and simply vindicates science. Such tests are concocted to scare people into thinking that the manufacturers are trying to skirt regulations by pushing smaller cars onto an unsuspecting society. Baloney – just as bikers understand the risks associated with riding, so small car buyers understand the risks of their purchases.
I’d rather have a Yaris or smartfortwo than something (anything) built 20 years ago.
superbadd75 :
where’s all the crash energy going, and where does the engine go in an impact?
The engine is, I believe, in the rear.
Alex Dykes
The structure holds together very well, the concern is the load on the occupants, in the Fifth Gear test the verdict was that the occupants were unlikely to have lived…
Maximum survivability in a crash is approximately a 10g deceleration (and that’s for a 28 year old Marine, not a 75 year old Blue-rinse). Into a solid object where you decelerate from 60mph to zero, it’s a simple calculation to work out you need a minimum of about 15 feet stopping distance. There isn’t a car out there with that much crumple zone. Airbags may stop you from impaling yourself on the dashboard, but the deceleration will cause your brain to explode as it squishes against the inside of your skull.
@Sajeev Mehta – as EricTheOracle points out, that’s a 2001. Late 90’s sounds so old ;-)
My point is that we should not gauge crash worthiness by size. Not a slam against the F150 – more a nod to the Mini’s cage build, especially considering size. Taken one step further – imagine how well it would do were it built as a mid-size and above.
For me, the SmartCar is penny-wise and lb. foolish. I live in Houston — land of the SUVs and pick up trucks. Simple physics says you don’t want to get into a wreck in Houston in a SmartCar.
Then don’t get into a wreck! Learn to steer, brake, and accelerate to avoid crashing. Don’t just stand on the brakes and brace for impact. The accident you successfully avoid in the smaller, more nimble car might be the one which would have killed you in your SUV. As Colin Chapman (founder of Lotus) said, we need minimum handling standards, not better bumpers.
We’ve become a land of cowards. I remember growing up with friends driving around in MG Midgets, Triumph Spitfires, Triumph TR6s, Saab Sonnets, and other sports cars back when the average family’s car was too big to even fit into today’s parking spaces. No airbags or supplemental restraint systems were even available. Of course, we also rode motorcycles and many of us (including me) still do. When we bought our vehicles, we bought what made us happy — what we wanted to drive/ride.
As an aside, I am always amazed when some smoker comes up to me and announces that he/she would never drive a car as small as my smart fortwo because small cars like that are so dangerous.
Two cars hitting at a combined 80mph, and this dosen’t happen very often in the real world? Are you kidding me? What planet do small car defenders live on? Given that 40mph is the speed limit in many urban areas, and also the fact that most drivers go a bit faster than posted limits. I think 80mph compined is a very realistic test speed.
The real joke isn’t that the car builders try to make these smaller cars sound as safe as anything else on the road. (Huge effort by Daimler/Smart)Its the greenies that push these shit cans as the only responsible vehicle choice other than a bicycle.
Reading the comments defending this car is a pretty humorous exercise.
“I’d rather have a Yaris or smartfortwo than something (anything) built 20 years ago.”
Nice way to set up a straw man argument and then knock it down.
For an out the door price of about $15k (power steering is an option on this car), you’ve got a lot of other cars available, new and used. FWIW, the Smart is a 1 liter, 3 cylinder car – it should get KILLER mileage. It gets 38 mpg combined.
The Mini is 40 inches longer than the Smart. That’s how small this car is.
less than 1% of all accidents can compare to this type of test
This is the most important part of the post. Perspective is lost without it.
Ooh big surprise, small cars don’t fare as well as big cars when you mash them together. What I’m interested in is what percentage of auto accidents are head-on crashes at speed. This is just like the “SUVs are prone to rollovers” revelation of not too long ago. It’s obvious and, surprise surprise, every vehicle design has strengths and weaknesses when it comes to crashworthiness.
Maybe they should crash all those vehicles into a pole or a parked car on the side of the road and see how they do. Maybe they should drive all the cars into a lake to see which ones sink the fastest. Maybe they should test all cars to see which one holds up best when a moderately-sized meteorite crashes into the roof of the car. Basically, you can’t engineer for all possible crash scenarios and it isn’t valid to make a blanket “small cars are therefore unsafe” conclusion after this. There is too much variation in cause and scenario to really determine a single best car. The very people who run away from a Yaris and into a Tahoe might find themselves upside-down in a ditch after an unsuccessful stop and/or avoidance maneuver.
Obviously, I’m a small car advocate, and I think they’re perfectly “safe,” or as safe as one can be when rocketing at 75 mph down an interstate full of people gabbing on cellphones and environmental hazards. Small cars are only less safe in the specific case of ramming another car head-on at speed. They probably fare better than larger cars in terms of stopping distance, visibility and maneuverability. This IIHS test doesn’t really tell anybody anything they shouldn’t have already figured out, but it’s making them forget the many safety benefits of a smaller car. BOOOOOOOO.
Didn’t Top Gear have Clarkson drive a Smart into a brick wall to test first hand the “egg” safety cage?
found the link….it was fifth gear.
and preaching to the choir here…but the smart was designed as an URBAN (sub 30-mph) runabout….primarily good for parking in tight spaces. (MPG stinks given its size, costs, etc.) and even if you live in a city, it’s much cheaper/convenient to just hail a cab (if cabs are plentiful where you are).
I would never allow anyone I cared about to drive one regularly on roads where speeds > 40 mph or drive a smart on a rural two-lane high-speed highway.
I saw a smart on the interstate last week. Made me wonder how it would react to the usually crash with a semi truck? Would it get crushed or would it just get kicked off (or bounced off) the road like a ball?
This IIHS test is a PR exercise to encourage people to drive compatible cars. It would be nice if “compatible” could be translated into “smaller and lower-bumpered” but I feel that’s too much to hope for.
Sure, but it’s not as though the test was pitting F-150s or SUVs against the smart fortwo, Yaris, and Fit. The test involved Camry, Accord, and Mercedes C-Class as the other cars.
Those who are complaining of bias should also note that people here are not exactly hating on the Yaris or Fit; in fact, most people are touting the Yaris and Fit as far more reasonable alternatives to the fortwo. Yes, the fortwo gets pretty good gas mileage and isn’t that expensive– unless you compare it to what you get. Its better fuel economy isn’t all that impressive, either, considering its size. A 36 combined MPG isn’t that much better than the 30 of the Fit; it’s 2.8 gallons per 100 miles compared to 3.3 gallons per 100 miles. For comparison, that’s less than the difference in consumption between a 21 MPG car and a 24 MPG car, or a 16 MPG vehicle and a 18 MPG vehicle. It’s much, much smaller than a Geo/Chevy Metro (Suzuki Cultus), without much more power.
***I saw a smart on the interstate last week. Made me wonder how it would react to the usually crash with a semi truck? Would it get crushed or would it just get kicked off (or bounced off) the road like a ball?***
given the fifth gear footage….I imagine that the smart would get crushed and bounce off like a ball.
And in such a scenario hope that the smart isn’t hit by a secondary impact (like another car or the median).
Yea, your SUV or pickup seems safe until you need to panic stop while avoiding an obstacle.
At that point any sideways moment is going to send your giganto lead box on stilts into a roll, at which point you have 0 control of the vehicle and you better have said your prayers.
Oh yea, and while rolling your now dependent on the roof, which as has been posted on TTAC before, is only designed to hold 50% more than the vehicle actually weighs.
But yea, as long as you don’t need to stop or steer the SUV or pickup might be safer…
Small car vs large car accidents are “rare”? Well great, I’m sure that’s because of magic and unicorns and not because, you know, there may be fewer Smarts and Fits out there than Accords and Camrys.
I’m also sure that this pointless statistic will comfort Smart owners immensely, as it means that they only have a 1% chance of being in an accident with a car that’s larger than their vehicle. Oh no, wait, that’s complete bullshit and any reasonable person should recognize it as such.
Smart is really dumb.
Of course small cars aren’t as crash-worthy as larger ones. But small cars have their own advantages.
1) Larger ones, especially trucks, have higher CoG and thus they found in the ditches more often.
2) Small cars are cheaper, so they are safe for the cost. I.e. Tata Nano is not as safe as a Camry, but it’s as safe as you can get if you can only afford a $2500 car.
But with the “Smart”, both points are void:
1) The CoG of the “Smart” isn’t any lower than a Honda Fit. In fact, the Fit is wider, and thus geometrically more stable.
2) The “Smart” isn’t any cheaper than the Fit/Versa, a car three times it’s size.
The “Smart” is really dumb. It’s only smart, if it’s priced right, i.e. $5000. Then you can say it’s as safe as you can get for $5000 new car.
Yea, your SUV or pickup seems safe until you need to panic stop while avoiding an obstacle.
Non sequitur much? What does that have to do at all with the IIHS Crash Tests, which said that the Fit/Yaris/fortwo were less safe than the Camry/Accord/C-Class? Sure, a higher center of gravity on an SUV or pickup does make rolling over more likely, but the tests in question weren’t about SUVs or pickups.
“small car buyers understand the risks of their purchases”
Do they really?
The average person goes to YouTube and sees a Yaris bouncing off a wall with the same visual impact as a Camry. That sort of imagery makes a strong, but unfortunately misleading, impression.
I agree that the recent IIHS study is silly, but I also think it is necessary.
Two cars hitting at a combined 80mph, and this dosen’t happen very often in the real world? Are you kidding me? What planet do small car defenders live on? Given that 40mph is the speed limit in many urban areas, and also the fact that most drivers go a bit faster than posted limits. I think 80mph compined is a very realistic test speed.
See, this is why science relies on measurements and statistics rather than gut feelings. It’s very rare that two vehicles crash head-on into one another without braking first. In fact, head-on collisions like the one simulated here, at any speed, are rare. Think about how often we hear about someone being “rear-ended” or “T-boned at an intersection.” What percentage of time do you drive by an accident and see two vehicles that impacted head-on with an 80mph closing speed?
That’s why it’s important to analyze not just how well a car comes out of an accident, but how well it is equipped to avoid one. The fortwo stops from 60-0mph in 20 fewer feet than a Ford F-150. If cut-off, its small size makes it far more likely that there is room for it to make an emergency lane change.
Obviously, all of that assumes that the driver is competent, attentive, and sober. If you tend to drive around drunk, distracted, or just lack basic driving skill, then you would be safer in a larger vehicle. But the rest of us would be less safe, so get a moped if you insist on driving impaired.
What I would really love to see is statistics indicated the likelihood of each type of crash: car-vs-car and car-vsobject.
Most people prefer large vehicles on the basis that they fare better in the case of a crash vs a smaller vehicle. But unless stats show us that they are the most common type of crash, which I highly doubt, this is nothing more than another version of “mine is bigger than yours” and has nothing to do with actual safety thinking.
http://www.aiam.org/public/aiam/safety/crash_statistics.aspx#P9
is full of stats but does not indicate if more than one vehicle was involved for each given crash.
sitting@home,
A quick Wiki lookup tells us that us mortal humans can easily tolerate 12G continiously eyballs-out, and that crashes over 100G are survivable. Think shock loads, not continious force.
By that measure, a stop from 30m/s (about 70MPH) will require only 45cm, or a foot and a half, of WELL-DESIGNED crumple zone. Oh, and either a very good airbag, or a 5-point harness.
Which brings me to a second point – cars without an engine upfront tend to fare extremely well in a front-end collision. People crashing front-end into a wall/car in an MR2, or Elise, or a similar car, at 60+mph can often pop the door open (post-crash, of course) and walk away with a slight shock. Try that in a Corolla.
Of course, usually multi-vehicle accidents are t-bones (which you SHOULD be able to avoid by, well, looking left and right before crossing an intersection) or rear-end impacts (where speeds are usually lower and your biggest concern is the kind of head restraint you have, not your crumple zone). And even then, your biggest enemy is not the guy in an F150, but the blob of grey matter that sits between your left and right ear. Think of it this way: it’s ALWAYS your fault that you got hit. Always.
I have a different beef with SmartCar. For the money, it should offer a better interior. For the weight and engine size, it should offer better gas mileage. For the seating capacity and shape, it should have more cargo room. Finally, the damn thing didn’t have to be so uglyfyingly tall.
Nevertheless, it’s got a unique value proposition, and people oughtta stop dismissing it for safety. If you worry so much that the guy in the F150 will live longer than you… Just spend the extra $$$ you’ll save from buying small on PPO health insurance and stop worrying. Cancer kills more people per month than car crashes kill in a year, yet people keep on smoking, eating junk, missing sleep, skipping showers, and bashing small cars like they’re all experts in physics and collision statistics. Talk about priorities.
Guys, my fingers are getting tired, so if you could please stop posting stuff that is flat-out wrong, I’d appreciate it.
1) The CoG of the “Smart” isn’t any lower than a Honda Fit. In fact, the Fit is wider, and thus geometrically more stable.
First, it’s smart fortwo. Notice the lowercase letters. It will help your cause of trying to sound authoritative if you type the name of the car correctly.
Second, the Honda Fit does not have an electronic stability control system. The smart fortwo does. That’s super-important when discussing stability and rollover resistance. Second, the track (what you really meant, rather than vehicle width) does not determine the stability. Stability is related to everything from suspension design to cg (not “CoG”) to mass distribution to tire choice and pressure.
2) The “Smart” isn’t any cheaper than the Fit/Versa, a car three times it’s size.
Base model smart fortwo: $11,990
Base model Honda Fit: $14,750
Yes, the smart fortwo is much smaller. That’s why I bought it. I have a Yukon if I want to drive something huge. Are there really consumers so stupid that they choose their cars based cost per pound/cubic foot?
I would never allow anyone I cared about to drive one regularly on roads where speeds > 40 mph or drive a smart on a rural two-lane high-speed highway.
Dude, it’s not up to you to dictate what people you care about drive. Nor should you because you don’t have enough understanding of engineering to make an educated choice for them. Would you let them drive that road in a 1991 Toyota, 1989 Honda, or 2002 Nissan subcompact? Because all of those cars are far less safe than a smart fortwo.
With the way Accord and Camry grew, I bet many people are considering Civic and Corolla as a sensible “mid-size” purchase. After all, current Corolla’s wheelbase is exactly the same as Camry’s from early ’90s – 102.4″.
For those in the market a much more informative would be a crash test between Corolla and Camry and between Civic and Accord.
“FishTank :
I’m guessing you’ve all seen the crash results pitting a Ford F-150 against a Mini in a same-scenario accident. If not, you’re better off in the Mini. Link below…
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
Solely to reiterate that size does not always equal safety.”
Hold on a minute, that test was not of a Mini crashing into an F-150, it was a comparison of their individual crashes into an artificial barrier. I agree that size alone does not tell you the probability of getting killed or injured in a vehicle, but it is certainly a factor. The referenced web site starts with this:
“Wow. Both of these vehicles hit the exact same off-set barrier at 40mph. Now keep in mind that this is not a test of how the two cars would fare in a head-on collision with each-other.”
Yea, your SUV or pickup seems safe until you need to panic stop while avoiding an obstacle.
So does a skinny-tired, drum-braked Yaris. Assuming you even have time to react, given the low seating position and lack of visibility.
I used to think that my ’88 Civic could dart me out of any situation, until I got surprised at an intersection one day. At the moment of impact, all the zippy handling and driver ego suddenly didn’t matter. The only thing that mattered was the distance between my ribs and the other guy’s front bumper.
You can rationalize a small car any way you like, but when the chips are down size matters.
“See, this is why science relies on measurements and statistics rather than gut feelings. It’s very rare that two vehicles crash head-on into one another without braking first. In fact, head-on collisions like the one simulated here, at any speed, are rare.”
Most reports put head on vehicle-to-vehicle accidents at about 2% of all accidents … and 10% of fatalities. That isn’t nothing.
Second, the more common t-bone type accident is likely to show a big advantage for the C-class vs. smart, etc.
P.S. Ms. Street sounds like one of the characters out of “Thank You For Smoking”.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/
I have a different beef with SmartCar. For the money, it should offer a better interior. For the weight and engine size, it should offer better gas mileage. For the seating capacity and shape, it should have more cargo room. Finally, the damn thing didn’t have to be so uglyfyingly tall.
Thanks for your very rational post, Alex.
I own a smart fortwo (two actually) as well as a GMC Yukon and a Mazda Miata. The smart has the nicest interior. The seats (leather) are comfortable and supportive and the heat works great when the top is down on cool days/nights. It’s quiet, doesn’t rattle, and I like the looks of the interior, but that’s a matter of personal taste. For being the cheapest convertible in the U.S., I think that its interior is great.
Fuel mileage on the highway is related to Cd and frontal area, neither of which is good in the smart. But it still gets over 40mpg on the highway and has adequate power (the officer said he clocked me at 84mph — a speed which I will neither confirm nor deny). Around town, I get in the mid 30s, but, though small, it’s still got a curb weight that’s about 200lbs. greater than a Geo Metro and manages to make 20+ more hp from the same size/type engine (1.0L I3).
Cargo capacity, at 12 cu. ft. is also pretty darned good. It’s way better than my ~5 cu. ft. capacity in the Miata. My girlfriend and I can easily get a week’s worth of groceries in the smart. I’ve carried 6’+ fishing rods with nothing sticking out.
It’s tall to make it safer. The elevated seat position puts you above the most dangerous zone in a side impact. It also makes the car easier to see for other drivers while giving the owner a better view of the road ahead.
Most reports put head on vehicle-to-vehicle accidents at about 2% of all accidents
And how many of them happen with an 80mph or faster closing speed.
… and 10% of fatalities. That isn’t nothing.
But it’s close to nothing given how few fatalities there are on the road. There are about 1.5 fatalities for every 100 million miles driven. Using your figures, that means that there are 0.15 fatalities in head-on collisions for 100 million miles driven. To put that into perspective, to have a 10% chance of dying in a head-on collision in a traffic accident, you would have to drive 66 million miles (statistically speaking). (I’ll admit that I’m not a statistician, so I’m open to being corrected by someone who is.)
Second, the more common t-bone type accident is likely to show a big advantage for the C-class vs. smart, etc.
What are you basing that on? The Smart ForTwo earned the best possible ratings in side impact tests conducted by both NHTSA and IIHS.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to re-find the link to the crash statistics study I read, but statistic breakdown of injury possibility is something like this:
Minor (almost no injuries) – 71%
Moderate (some injury, not life-threatening) – 16%
Major (some injuries, possibly life-threating) – 11%
Severe (definite critical injuries or death) – 4%
In 17 out of 20 car crashes, you’re not even going to need an ambulance.
Also, the “buy a bigger tank to protect myself” philosophy is a perfect example of Privatize the Benefits (I’m safer in my big tank-like vehicle) and Socialize the Costs (everyone around me is less safe).
econ.ucsd.edu/~miwhite/SUVS-finalversion.pdf
Finally, it’s odd that the IIHS is down on small cars like the Smart when they praised it less than a year ago.
econ.ucsd.edu/~miwhite/SUVS-finalversion.pdf
@GeeDashOff
You’ve completely missed the point: while a lighter, nimbler car may be able to swerve all the quicker, the larger, heavier vehicle has all the more time to lay on the horn to tell others to get out of the way.
People don’t get that carrying four people and a large dog in 12″ of snow makes more sense in a large vehicle that matches the carbon footprint of the smaller vehicle by passenger mile.
Second, the Honda Fit does not have an electronic stability control system.
Some Fits do, indeed, have an electronic stability control system. Honda calls it “Vehicle Stability Assist” and it comes on Fit Sports with navigation: http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/features.aspx?Feature=vsa
Does anyone know how the Camry and Corolla fared in this crash?
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/toyota-person-camry-2294158-one
Well think about what has to happen for a head on collision:
Someone is in the wrong lane. Neither driver takes any evasive action whatsoever and they drive into each other like a kid crashing their Tonkas.
That ain’t happening too often. Somebody is going to be swerving and braking most of the time. Nearly head on collisions, sure. Head on, zombie @ the wheel collisions… not so much.
There was an interesting article published by the New Yorker a few years ago (easily googled) about how fatality rates per thousand miles driven were higher in large vehicles like the Ford F150 than they were in small vehicles like the Volkswagen Jetta. Manoeuvrability trumps collision survivability. Remember, the best way to survive an accident is to avoid it in the first place.
It would be interesting to see current information to see if this pattern persists, but I can easily believe that a person driving a responsive, well-performing car (and I don’t mean a compact supercar, just a good car) could easily avoid accidents that would be serious trouble for the driver of a large SUV or pickup truck. All that weight is good when you are actually hitting things, but really bad when you are trying to quickly accelerate or decelerate (like you are likely to do in an accident situation).
It’s akin to the myth about airplane safety. Most people intuitively believe that airplanes are somewhat unsafe because they have bad accidents. The reality is that, by mile travelled, they are one of the safest ways to travel. They simply don’t have accidents that often. You are far more likely to survive a flight from JFK or Newark to LAX than you are to survive a drive.
So now I know that when I’m driving my wife’s Fit, I shouldn’t smash into Accords (and since I normally drive our Accord, she’s the one who should be scared I suppose). But how likely is she to have that bad accident, compared to the driver of the giant SUV? That car is easy to drive, so I’m guessing significantly less likely.
fmaxwell :
Guys, my fingers are getting tired, so if you could please stop posting stuff that is flat-out wrong, I’d appreciate it.
First, it’s smart fortwo. Notice the lowercase letters. It will help your cause of trying to sound authoritative if you type the name of the car correctly.
—————————————
That’s because the logic stands for all “Smart” branded cars, the original, the current model and the one from near future.
It’s like when I talk about a Civic, I don’t have to say if it’s a DX or LX or EX to make my point valid.
—————————————-
Second, the Honda Fit does not have an electronic stability control system. The smart fortwo does. That’s super-important when discussing stability and rollover resistance.
————————————–
As pointed by another poster, it’s available.
—————————————-
Second, the track (what you really meant, rather than vehicle width) does not determine the stability. Stability is related to everything from suspension design to cg (not “CoG”) to mass distribution to tire choice and pressure.
—————————————–
When people are talking about car “width”, it’s implied that it’s for both vehicle width and track width, since all mainstream cars put their wheels on corners. So, your picking on the term “width” can only show your cynicism and nothing more.
Track width has everything to do with stability. Ask your high school teacher, if you don’t understand. I am not paid to teach you high school physics.
—————————————-
Base model smart fortwo: $11,990
Base model Honda Fit: $14,750
—————————————
I live in Canada. Here, fortwo starts at $14,990 and Fit starts at $14,980.
——————————————
Yes, the smart fortwo is much smaller. That’s why I bought it. I have a Yukon if I want to drive something huge. Are there really consumers so stupid that they choose their cars based cost per pound/cubic foot?
———————————————
Consumers choose cars because the cars either have low per cubic foot price (i.e. Camry), or have better longevity (i.e. Camry), or perform better (i.e. BMW 335), or cheap (i.e. Tata Nano).
But the “Smart” branded car, as compared to Fit/Versa, has higher per cubic foot price, has no longevity advantage, perform worse, not cheaper, and back to topic, is not as safe.
As pointed by the previous poster, it’s about maneuverability vs. collision survivability. But the “Smart” is not as maneuverable or as survivable as the Fit.
So, it’s not smart, it’s stupid.
@Karah Street
Sandbagged, my eye! Did the IIHS take out the Smart’s engine to make it weigh less?
What you may not know is that this test represents a type of crash that is rare and extreme — less than 1% of all accidents can compare to this type of test — and it is neither recognized nor required by federal safety regulators. By pitting “big vs. small,” this test seems to have one goal: to imply that bigger, heavier cars are always safer.
The smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government safety standards, including earning a five-star side crash rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the highest ratings for front and side crashes in the IIHS’s own barrier test.
I haven’t read the other comments yet, but this is silly. Of course these kinds of crashes are “rare and extreme” in the context of ALL crashes that occur on US roads. Think of all the fender-benders you see yourself every blasted week!
But the ones that kill (and there are about 100 deaths per day in the US alone) are more likely to be similar to the test condition. How many times do head-on crashes on rural 2-lane roads happen to be fatal to at least one vehicle occupant? Lots of times.
And of course the Smart “meets or exceeds all federal government safety standards.” If it didn’t the car wouldn’t be legal to sell here.
Regardless, the tests were performed to illustrate that size does matter, not that you have to get a Chevy Suburban or anything, but just upsizing to a Camcordima 4-cylinder buys you significant protection with little sacrifice in fuel economy. There’s absolutely no evidence to back up the statement that “smaller cars are more maneuverable and therefore can avoid more crashes” and the even more absurd argument that smaller cars present “a smaller target.”
I agree with the premise of the tests and will not purchase anything smaller than a midsize car. Also it should not be forgotten that about half of all occupant fatalities occur in single-vehicle crashes, and small cars do NOT have a better record in this regard than larger cars. Interestingly though, a greater proportion of single-vehicle fatalities occur in SUVs and pickups because of their greater propensity to roll over when leaving the pavement.
As for the comment that “[the crash test] is neither recognized nor required by federal safety regulators,” so what? The Institute as a research organization is free to conduct any test it desires, certainly one that is a very realistic fatal crash scenario (remember the impact speeds were a relatively low 40 mph).
One last thing: I’m not going along with Smart’s silly noncapitalization of the car’s name in the same way I refuse to call a Saturn Aura an “AURA.” And it’s a Mini and a Saab, not a shouted “MINI” or “SAAB.”
fmaxwell:
Base model smart fortwo: $11,990
Base model Honda Fit: $14,750
Cool. Now let’s compare the features on these two:
smart has manual windows, manual mirrors, no power steering (it’s a factory option though, haha), no alarm, no radio, no audio system, no A/C.
Fit has a standard radio/CD/MP3 player with aux jack, all power options standard, plus air conditioning. It can also seat two more people.
Your “comparison” is about as meaningless as they get – add all those features to the “pure” fortwo plus metallic paint (another Fit standard), and MSRP climbs to $13,920. Congrats, now you’re paying slightly less for a much smaller and less reliable car. But hey, look on the bright side – it’s also slow as hell so you’ll be safer!
In the USA Today
“Daimler Smart vs. Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedan. IIHS says the Smart “went airborne and turned around 450 degrees … a dramatic indication of the Smart’s poor performance, but not the only one.” Much of the interior was shoved into the crash dummy “from head to feet.”
Some Fits do, indeed, have an electronic stability control system. Honda calls it “Vehicle Stability Assist” and it comes on Fit Sports with navigation:
Every smart fortwo, from the <$12K base model all of the way to the fully loaded convertible (still under $20K) comes with Mercedes Electronic Stability Program as a standard feature. It’s not just on some models or an extra-cost add-on. It’s on every one.
People don’t get that carrying four people and a large dog in 12″ of snow makes more sense in a large vehicle that matches the carbon footprint of the smaller vehicle by passenger mile.
The problem isn’t that truck full of people in the snow. It’s that same truck being used for commuting Monday through Friday every week with one or, at most, two people in it. What people don’t get is that they don’t need to buy the largest vehicle that they can ever imagine needing. That’s what rental vehicles are for. With the amount saved in gasoline, the average person could rent large vehicles on the rare times when they need them and still come out money ahead. And the carbon footprint would be much smaller.
fmaxwell :
April 14th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Every smart fortwo, from the <$12K base model all of the way to the fully loaded convertible (still under $20K) comes with Mercedes Electronic Stability Program as a standard feature. It’s not just on some models or an extra-cost add-on. It’s on every one.
——————————————
Was the smart fortwo “[going] airborne and [turning] around 450 degrees” evidence of the Mercedes Electronic Stability Program busy at work? BTW, the Fit didn’t go airborne.
fmaxwell, dude you just gotta treat the haters like birds – let them crap all over your car, because there’s no real way to stop it. Some people hate the hell out of little cars for whatever reason (doubtless they will justify it with all sorts of value analysis, etc.) and they aren’t going to change their minds no matter what.
At the end of the day, these little cars performed poorly on a crash test that created a very specific set of conditions with limited relevance in the real world (just like the standard star-ratings have little real-world relevance). Testing can only tell us so much, defensive driving is the real key to safety. People will forget the tests after not too long, though the simple-minded will consider this to be concrete proof that we should all be driving big cars until someone does an SUV vs. semi test and proves SUVs to be deathtraps and we all buy Mack trucks.
I like the smart because it is super tiny and a great car for high-density urban areas. I would not buy one for myself because it doesn’t make sense with my lifestyle, but I don’t hate it. I think it offers a unique and intriguing purchasing proposition, and I’m glad it’s part of the automotive landscape. This site has many passionate car people, though, and passionate car people don’t like the smart or the Prius or lots of other cars that are sensible offerings but don’t fit their particular metrics of value or style. One might even argue that cars like the smart represent a different way of thinking about cars that gearheads aren’t comfortable with so they froth and roar. Whatever. It ain’t worth it. Salve your wounds by hitting a smart enthusiast site, you aren’t going to change any minds here.
@ wsn
Good point: ESC (or ESP in this case) doesn’t help much if all 4 wheels are off the ground! Actually video footage shows the Smart came close to rolling over (and who knows what else it would have hit in the real world compared to that cavernous crash test space).
Cool. Now let’s compare the features on these two:
smart has manual windows, manual mirrors, no power steering (it’s a factory option though, haha)
Maybe you need power steering in an 1800lb. car, but most people don’t. haha
no alarm, no radio, no audio system, no A/C.
Fit has a standard radio/CD/MP3 player with aux jack, all power options standard, plus air conditioning. It can also seat two more people.
You may think that a motorcycle with a sidecar is preferable because it seats more people, but some of us judge vehicles based on other qualities. If the Fit’s seating for four makes you this happy, you’d probably be orgasmic if you saw the number of seats a minivan has.
Let’s compare the features on similarly priced models: the smart fortwo passion base model ($13,990) vs. a Honda Fit base model ($14,740), if you want meaningful:
They both have power steering, power windows, power brakes, power mirrors, air conditioning, ABS, tire pressure monitoring, etc. Let’s look at some of the areas where they differ:
ESC - fortwo: Yes Fit: No
6CD changer w. MP3 - fortwo: Yes Fit: No
Heated side mirrors- fortwo: Yes Fit: No
Panorama roof - fortwo: Yes Fit: No
Legroom - fortwo: 43.5\" Fit: 41.3\"
Paddle shifters - fortwo: Yes Fit: No
Automatic trans - fortwo: Yes Fit: No
MPG - fortwo: 33/41 Fit: 27/33
So for $800 more, the Honda is a car with much worse fuel economy and that makes no one smile as you drive by. No one comes up to tell you how cool your car is. No one is eager to ride in it. It’s just another boring Honda econobox.
See, I have an advantage here: I looked at the Fit and the smart and the choice was an easy one. The Fit was about as exciting as warm milk.
BTW, the Fit didn’t go airborne.
The Fit didn’t hit a Mercedes, either.
You think that the smart did poorly? Imagine what any of my motorcycles (Buell, Aprilia, or Suzuki) might do in that test! Oh my!!! I better sell them, sell the smart, sell the Miata, and buy a huge SUV. Because I really need to live my life based on irrational fears about statistically improbable events.
fmaxwell :
April 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
If the Fit’s seating for four makes you this happy, you’d probably be orgasmic if you saw the number of seats a minivan has.
—————————————–
Yes, I would be orgasmic, if the said minivan has more seats, handles as well as the Fit, is as reliable, is safer, is not more expensive.
BTW, what’s the legroom for fortwo’s rear seats?
fmaxwell :
April 14th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
The Fit didn’t hit a Mercedes, either.
You think that the smart did poorly? Imagine what any of my motorcycles (Buell, Aprilia, or Suzuki) might do in that test! Oh my!!! I better sell them, sell the smart, sell the Miata, and buy a huge SUV. Because I really need to live my life based on irrational fears about statistically improbable events.
——————————————-
The Fit won’t become airborne even if it collided with a MB. A C-class is between a Civic and an Accord in size.
I think you have a problem reading English. I stated before that:
But the “Smart” branded car, as compared to Fit/Versa, has higher per cubic foot price, has no longevity advantage, perform worse, not cheaper, and back to topic, is not as safe.
The motorcycles or the Miata (or even a Ferrari) may be less safe or have less utility than a Fit, but they perform better. It’s not a shame that these vehicles lack in certain areas for the gain in other areas. It’s a trade off.
I won’t be so critical of the smart if it can out handle the Fit, or if it’s cheaper (see my post, it starts $10 higher).
But it’s a shame (and stupid) if the vehicle is inferior to a competitor in every aspect.
@PhotoJim
There was an interesting article published by the New Yorker a few years ago (easily googled) about how fatality rates per thousand miles driven were higher in large vehicles like the Ford F150 than they were in small vehicles like the Volkswagen Jetta. Manoeuvrability trumps collision survivability. Remember, the best way to survive an accident is to avoid it in the first place.
If you’re talking about the article authored by Malcolm Gladwell, it was rubbish. There is no evidence — none — that shows maneuverability trumps collision survivability. We do know however, that having electronic stability control is very useful in preventing crashes from occurring, but this isn’t because of the skill of the driver. Then you have differences in driver demographics — pickup drivers for instance consistently have lower seat belt use rates than drivers of any other type of vehicle.
VWs traditionally do very well both in crash tests and under real-world crash conditions — they are well-engineered (though not necessarily reliable). The Ford F-150, at least up until its 2004 redesign, was not designed for maximum crashworthiness and as a higher riding vehicle, it has a much greater propensity to roll over in a single-vehicle crash.
People have the erroneous belief that they can avoid any crash, but this is absolutely not true. You can keep a vigilant eye and drive at a safe speed, but if you choose to drive on a twisting 2-lane West Virginia mountain road (as I did yesterday), and some yahoo loses it on a blind curve, you won’t even have time to react before the crash occurs. That’s when you hope the crashworthiness features of your car save you.
As an aside though, I often feel safer driving on such roads because they are nearly deserted these days — seems all the traffic is on the interstates where everyone wants to “make time.”
Every car I own is probably more dangerous than a new Smart in an accident, but I would rather drive what I like than plan my whole life around surviving an accident. If you are really that paranoid, you may as well leave your crash helmet on whenever you leave the house (or take a shower).
I like Smart cars. They are fun to drive just by being freaky and different, and if you live in the city the parking advantage they have over even a Fit is quite noticeable. That said, I am unlikely to buy one soon – I’m waiting till I can pick a beat one up used and cheap, then make a Hayabusa conversion!
@toxicroach
Someone is in the wrong lane. Neither driver takes any evasive action whatsoever and they drive into each other like a kid crashing their Tonkas.
I agree full head-ons are relatively rare; hence the development of the offset head-on crash test (IIHS, EuroNCAP, also used in Australia and Japan).
But I did investigate one memorable such crash more than a decade a ago. Two young males in a pre-Tacoma Toyota pickup decided to pass a car on a blind hilltop. They were met head-on by a Ford Econoline van driven by an older man with a boy of maybe 10 or so in the front passenger seat. No one was belted and there were no airbags. The young guys in the truck were killed instantly. The van occupants sustained relatively minor injuries.
The pickup’s front end was smashed almost back to the windshield as I recall, and the bed was shoved into the back of the cab. The rear leaf springs were curled up so the back of the bed was maybe 4 feet or so above the ground. Not pretty.
” Second, the more common t-bone type accident is likely to show a big advantage for the C-class vs. smart, etc.
What are you basing that on? The Smart ForTwo earned the best possible ratings in side impact tests conducted by both NHTSA and IIHS.”
Physics. A relatively tough course. I took a year of it in high school plus two more in college. You?
shiney2 :
April 14th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
if you live in the city the parking advantage they have over even a Fit is quite noticeable.
—————————————-
Finally, I see a valid scenario where the smart is not stupid.
But of course, that doesn’t apply to my hometown. Parking is not that hard here and in busy areas, it’s all about meter parking. So, the room allowed for each car is determined by the meters.
@fmaxwell
Most reports put head on vehicle-to-vehicle accidents at about 2% of all accidents
And how many of them happen with an 80mph or faster closing speed.
… and 10% of fatalities. That isn’t nothing.
But it’s close to nothing given how few fatalities there are on the road. There are about 1.5 fatalities for every 100 million miles driven. Using your figures, that means that there are 0.15 fatalities in head-on collisions for 100 million miles driven. To put that into perspective, to have a 10% chance of dying in a head-on collision in a traffic accident, you would have to drive 66 million miles (statistically speaking).
I have to say I passionately disagree with this kind of thinking (in your final paragraph).
Traffic crashes are very serious public health hazard, yet they are basically taken for granted, almost in a “cost of doing business” kind of way. In 2008, there were 37,000+ such deaths in the US alone, actually a record low since 1961. This is good in one sense, probably helped in no small part by high gas prices followed by recession, but it still amounts to 100 people on average every single day! What would the outcry be if a planeload of people went down every day with that number of fatalities? How about if AIDS deaths were that high? But we just drive merrily along when so much more could be done to prevent this needless toll.
(I realize of course that we all must die some day, and many more Americans die from heart disease, cancer, and stroke, but the thing about auto crashes is that these involve a much higher proportion of young people who have their futures snuffed out.)
Yes, I would be orgasmic, if the said minivan has more seats, handles as well as the Fit, is as reliable, is safer, is not more expensive.
Wow, you are officially the most boring person in the world. The Fit’s handling impresses you? That’s sad. There’s not a car in this whole discussion that handles well.
BTW, what’s the legroom for fortwo’s rear seats?
It’s obvious: You’re a soccer mom. I’m not. I’m a guy with no kids, so I don’t get all excited thinking about seating capacity, reliability, safety, and purchase price. I’m into engineering and unique features. It’s why I have vehicles like the smart fortwo cabrio, a Mazda Miata, and motorcycles like my Buell XB12Ss.
I think you have a problem reading English. I stated before that:
But the “Smart” branded car,
Apparently it’s you who has trouble reading, since there is no ‘”Smart” branded car.’ The name is “smart” with a lowercase “s.” I’ve tried to correct you over and over, but you just can’t seem to take a hint.
as compared to Fit/Versa, has higher per cubic foot price,
Since I wanted the smallest car that I was comfortable in, that means that the smart is a better deal for the money in that respect. You probably think that the Mini would be a much better selling car if only it were 50% larger. You just don’t get it.
has no longevity advantage,
How did you determine this when the smart fortwo, as is now sold in the U.S. (the model 451) has only been available for two years?
perform worse, not cheaper, and back to topic, is not as safe.
It performs better since the purpose of an economy car is to be economical. It gets substantially better fuel economy.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Honda Fit did well in this test. Apparently your poor reading skills have let you down again. According to the IIHS report: In contrast, a number of injury measures on the dummy in the Fit were less than good. Forces on the left lower leg and right upper leg were in the marginal range, while the measure on the right tibia was poor. These indicate a high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity. In addition, the dummy’s head struck the steering wheel through the airbag. Intrusion into the Fit’s occupant compartment was extensive. Overall, this minicar’s rating is poor in the front-to-front crash.
Patting yourself on the back for choosing the Fit over the smart, based on this crash test is amazingly dumb. That’s like being really proud because your kid got a 35% on the final while someone else’s got 32%. Whoopty-friggin-do. They both failed.
Physics. A relatively tough course. I took a year of it in high school plus two more in college. You?
Here’s a hint for you: One vehicle that I worked on just finished a gravity assist maneuver around Mars in February.
If, as you seem to believe, safety could be measured on a truck scale, there would be no reason to have crash tests. Sorry, but it’s not that simple.
Perhaps you could give the IIHS your resume. I’m sure that they would be thrilled to hire someone who could predict crash safety just by eyeballing cars. Think of the cost savings!
Did anyone mention the Smart requires premium gas and only has a 2-year/24K mile warranty?
Oh, and according to the owner’s manual you are highly discouraged from performing your own maintenance? This despite the fact that the oil filter is in plain view and reach for changing yourself.
@210delray
I have to say I passionately disagree with this kind of thinking (in your final paragraph).
{snip}
But we just drive merrily along when so much more could be done to prevent this needless toll.
I applaud you for your passion and your well-written response, but the answer is not an arms race based on vehicle mass and size. The solution is not to get everyone driving the largest, heaviest vehicle that they can afford to buy and operate.
Let’s recognize the risk to others posed by drivers in large vehicles and set up penalties accordingly. It’s a much greater risk to everyone if someone is speeding in a Hummer than in a smart, Yaris, or Fit — so scale moving violation fines and points to vehicle weight. Too many moving violations should disqualify you from operating a large vehicle — at least temporarily.
Don’t let inexperienced drivers behind the wheel of 5,000lb. trucks. It’s a shame if they kill themselves in Honda Civics, but it’s a whole lot worse if they kill innocent people who were doing nothing wrong.
Start requiring truck licenses to drive trucks. SUVs have longer stopping distance, greater rollover potential, slower transient response — if you need one, fine, but they are not a substitute for station wagons and we need to stop treating them like they are.
The best thing we could do is get more people on public transportation. Buses, trains, and subways are many orders of magnitude safer than cars.
I see soccer moms driving around in huge SUVs, talking on cell phones, and using the rear-view mirror as a way to keep any eye on their unruly herd in the back seats.
But let’s figure out where the deaths are really coming from. If a drunk in a pickup truck T-bones you at 80mph, you are dead. Period. I don’t care if you’re driving a smart, a Ford Excursion, or a bicycle. Game over. Vehicle design won’t fix that problem.
This is not some big mystery, though. Racers figured it our years ago: Helmets. The public would never go for it. But it’s really the best way to reduce fatalities since head injuries are, by far, the biggest cause of death in car crashes.
fmaxwell : Then don’t get into a wreck! Learn to steer, brake, and accelerate to avoid crashing. Don’t just stand on the brakes and brace for impact.
You’ve obviously been fortunate that nobody has run into you. Congratulations. When somebody does, you’ll realize that it isn’t always avoidable.
BTW, it’s Smart. That’s just the way proper nouns are written in English. Mercedes isn’t so special that I’m willing to modify my written language for them!
A few years ago one of those 18 wheel dump trucks went into a Suburban on a nearby road and killed the driver. Why anyone would feel safe driving a tiny lightweight Suburban on an American highway with all of those 18 wheelers is beyond me. Kenworth is the only way to go!
Excuse me while I go for a bike ride. Hopefully I won’t get hit by any Smarts or Tatas. Well, ok, maybe the Tata wouldn’t fare so well against me – I do need to lose a bit of weight.
@210delray
Did anyone mention the Smart requires premium gas and only has a 2-year/24K mile warranty?
Did anyone mention that smart cars are cool– and that’s why there’s a waiting list for smart cars?
My Buell and Aprilia use premium fuel, too. Using a higher octane allows an engine to run a higher compression, giving more power with less displacement. That leads to better fuel economy. It’s just engineering. Nothing to be scared of.
As to the short warranty, it keeps the purchase price low. If your income is such that you can’t run the risk that you will face an unexpected repair, there are extended warranties and service contracts available from the smart dealers.
Oh, and according to the owner’s manual you are highly discouraged from performing your own maintenance? This despite the fact that the oil filter is in plain view and reach for changing yourself.
Your mattress probably still has its tag, too, doesn’t it?
While I’m here, I’ll just say that I’d like to see a limit on new passenger vehicle weight. It could be based on the average weight of vehicles sold recently, rather than an arbitrary limit, so the limit would rise or fall according to consumer preference. Larger vehicles could still be purchased and used, but they would require stricter licensing requirements and they could only be used when actually needed.
You’ve obviously been fortunate that nobody has run into you. Congratulations. When somebody does, you’ll realize that it isn’t always avoidable.
I’ve been run into, rear-ended, and even run off of the road by someone darting across four wet lanes to reach their exit at 60+mph. Sure, sometimes accident are not avoidable. But I got cut off in my smart and was able to avoid being hit because I was able to squeeze between the truck and the curb. In any other car, I’d have hit — hard. My Miata has saved me because I could swerve and brake so well. Each vehicle has its pluses and minuses.
BTW, it’s Smart. That’s just the way proper nouns are written in English. Mercedes isn’t so special that I’m willing to modify my written language for them!
Sorry, but it’s their brand and they get to decide whether it’s capitalized or not.
@fmaxwell
Thanks, but I am not advocating an arms race with regard to vehicle size. Our personal fleet consists of 2 midsize cars and a small pickup. All weigh in the 3,000- to 3,200-pound range. But I would never consider a Smart for myself or loved ones.
Some of things I would advocate to get the death toll down (I’m going to stick mostly with those car enthusiasts would agree with):
1. Make nonuse of seatbelts a primary offense. Right now, in only about half the states can you be cited for not wearing a seat belt without committing some other traffic violation. Only classic cars originally equipped without belts would be exempt.
2. Require ALL occupants in all seats to wear seatbelts or use age-appropriate car safety seats.
3. Require ALL motorcyclists to wear DOT-approved helmets. We are the only industrialized nation that does not.
4. Raise the driving age to at least 17 or even 18 for full privileges. Institute strong graduated license laws, with learner’s permit, intermediate, and full driving privileges. The intermediate stage would have strict restrictions on the number of passengers and night driving hours. Although I don’t think there is evidence right now to support it, I think having a different license class for driving a vehicle over a certain weight (say 5,000 lbs.) might be worth trying.
5. Require all interstate and major divided highways to have Jersey barriers or at least cable rails in medians narrower than say 50-75 feet to reduce or eliminate crossover crashes.
6. Set realistic speed limits and then enforce them with no more than a 5 mph tolerance for speedometer error, steep grades, tire size variations, and such.
7. Starting with the interstates, remove or replace fixed roadside objects like signposts, light poles, and trees with breakaway designs. Never plant trees near any newly built road, whether off the shoulder or in the median. Replace inadequate guardrails and make more liberal use of crash cushions like sand barrels.
Oh, and I’m going to continue with proper English and call it a Smart Fortwo, too! Same with you Audi — it’s Quattro and Allroad.
Buying a big ass vehicle will only give you a real advantage in one type of crash, which is a head on collision with a lighter vehicle. Not only is this a rare occurrence, but it can be avoided by jacking the steering wheel after you see them coming at you (you’re paying attention right?) A lighter car will still mess you up if you get t-boned, rear ended, or hit while not in motion by it; and if you hit a static object, you don’t get any advantage there either. It might even be worse if you hit a pole or a tree because the mass of your vehicle is spread out, and a pole rips right through, like a bullet through a sheet of paper. And we all know about SUV rollover.
@mcs
A few years ago one of those 18 wheel dump trucks went into a Suburban on a nearby road and killed the driver. Why anyone would feel safe driving a tiny lightweight Suburban on an American highway with all of those 18 wheelers is beyond me. Kenworth is the only way to go!
I can’t believe that you would let your family ride around in something as small as a Kenworth. I’d not let a loved one drive in anything smaller than this 400 ton capacity mining truck:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/images/t282b.jpg
fmaxwell : Sorry, but it’s their brand and they get to decide whether it’s capitalized or not.
Only when they write it!
I do agree with you that handling is important in avoiding accidents, and it’s the reason I don’t feel comfortable driving large vehicles with poor vehicle dynamics. I just hate hearing any suggestion that accidents occur because the car or driver on the receiving end wasn’t competent enough to avoid it. I’ve been the target of idiot drivers twice, and I don’t think I could have done anything to avoid them. I drive a Mazda3, and I would actually have a Miata (or maybe an S2000) too if I could afford a second vehicle. Since you own both a Miata and a smart, I have to ask: doesn’t the smart have terrible handling and cornering performance? That’s the impression I’ve received from automotive journalists.
The one thing I took away from the IIHS article was that the difference in fuel economy between a subcompact and a compact (even a mid-size car) is often negligible.
@210delray
You clearly know the subject well. And I agree with all of your recommendations for structural improvements to our roads.
Speed limits should be set at 85th percentile (Google is your friend, folks). That’s been shown to be fairly optimal for safety.
I’d also add that we need real driving tests — not perfunctory parallel parking and show that you know how to signal tests. And that requires training. If someone does now know how to handle a car that’s sliding, then they shouldn’t be driving. If they can’t modulate brakes or swerve without losing control, they are not ready to drive.
I am a motorcyclist who would *never* ride without a full-face helmet. That’s why I am still here to write this. But I am opposed to helmet laws for adults. I believe that the government should inform people of the dangers and let them make up their own minds. If they decide riding without helmets is too dangerous, then they could decide that riding at all is too dangerous. They could decide that bungee jumping, scuba diving, skydiving, hangliding, and dirt biking is too dangerous.
Ditto for seatbelts. Require them for people under 18, but not for adults.
But let’s not lose perspective: Smoking leads to over 400,000 deaths per year in the U.S. There’s your low-hanging fruit if you want to reduce needless deaths: Ban tobacco smoking and you save more than ten times as many lives as *eliminating* traffic fatalities.
@rpn453
The smart will not generate high-Gs, but the lightweight makes it pretty willing to change direction quickly. Acceleration is slow. On sub-optimal roads (wet, snow, etc.), the ESC makes the smart a safer choice.
The Miata is astounding — when the road is good. Mine has Bilstein shocks, aftermarket anti-sway bars, and adjustable end links.
I’ve driven the S2000. If you want power, it’s got it all over the Miata. But I’ll take the lighter weight and better handling of the Miata. I’ve got the second generation (NB) 1999 10th Anniversary Edition and it’s arguably a better handler than the later NCs.
For commuting, the smart is my choice. I sit higher and see, and can be seen, better. I love the power top. I can close it at 80mph (theoretically, officer) at the first hint of rain. The heated seats are wonderful on chilly days with the top open. I also think that, with my long commute, I have a social responsibility to drive something fuel-efficient. And chicks dig it. ;)
More convertibles should have tops that can be closed at speed. I didn’t know that about the smart’s top.
Here’s the actual video. It wasn’t just the Smart that was obliterated. The fit and yaris got owned big time.
http://www.iihs.org/video.aspx/releases/pr041409
This is really simple.
Newton always wins!
Always!
Everytime I see a Smart on the highway, I cringe.
We should teach more basic physics in America.
As CNN ran the crash videos of the Mercedes and Honda cars over and over and over, I kept waiting for the Toyota video. it never came. I wonder why? That Yaris got creamed by the Camry. Does CNN not want to show Toyota in a bad light?
What surprises me the most about these tests is the fact that the weight difference between these vehicles isn’t even very substantial. The Accord, for instance, only weighs a mere 800 lbs more than the Fit. (The Camry/Yaris difference is closer to 1k lbs…but still.) In other words, with four decently sized people in the Fit there wouldn’t be any difference in weight whatsoever between the tested vehicles. This sort of modest weight difference should not yield such utter devastation of the lighter vehicles in this sort of
collision. Remember how when the Fit and Yaris came out, there was so much discussion about the great lengths Toyota and Honda had gone to make these vehicles structurally sound and uber-safe? People kept saying that these vehicles would able to stand up to collisions with trucks and SUVs just fine.
Yet here we have these rather surprising crash test videos which present a Yaris practically disintegrating when hit by a Camry, which itself isn’t exactly a heavyweight. I’d imagine a Yaris-Sequoia crash test would be nearly pornographic.
“The one thing I took away from the IIHS article was that the difference in fuel economy between a subcompact and a compact (even a mid-size car) is often negligible.”
This is true also. I drive an 06 Accord four that manages to get 34-36 mpg on the highway; remind me again why I need to drop down to something smaller. Considering their size, these vehicles should be able to do at least as well as a Civic hybrid (40/45 mpg).
In order for this test to be fair, they would next need to pit the “winner” of this face off against an opponent equally proportionate to the weight advantage of the larger vehicle to the smaller vehicle in this test. For example, if the Mercedes C class weighs 3900 lbs, and the Smart weighs 2600 lbs; they should then test the Mercedes C class against a car weighing one third more than the C class, around 5100 lbs, such as the Range Rover. After that, test the Range Rover against a small school bus, the school bus against a garbage truck, the garbage truck against a cement truck, the cement truck against a train. Then we will all be safer.
But seriously, if bigger always wins, why don’t they pack eggs in iron cartons?
What surprises me the most about these tests is the fact that the weight difference between these vehicles isn’t even very substantial. The Accord, for instance, only weighs a mere 800 lbs more than the Fit. (The Camry/Yaris difference is closer to 1k lbs…but still.)
The difference between the smart and the C-Class is pretty substantial, with the smart having a curb weight of 1825lbs. vs. the C-Class at about 3560lbs. Almost a 2:1 weight ratio — another reason why the test was incredibly unfair: They took the lightest microcar and pitted it against the heaviest midsize car.
I drive an 06 Accord four that manages to get 34-36 mpg on the highway; remind me again why I need to drop down to something smaller.
You don’t need to. I went from a VW Golf TDi (diesel) to the smart fortwo, which typically gets about 2mpg less than the VW. I switched because the VW was starting to bore me and the build quality was not as good — especially the electrical system. I like the unique looks of the smart. I like the clever engineering (plastic body panels that never ding, rear engine, RWD, and ESC, convertible top that can be raised and lowered at highway speeds, paddle-shifters on an automated manual transmission, etc.). I also like that the smart is more comfortable and has better seats.
dgduris wrote:
This is really simple.
Newton always wins!
Always!
Everytime I see a Smart on the highway, I cringe.
We should teach more basic physics in America.
What we need to teach is engineering, since your school obviously didn’t even mention the subject. Engineering is why cars have gotten lighter while getting safer, too. It’s why, in a head-on collision with a smart car, the driver of a far larger older car is more likely to be the one killed or seriously injured. It’s why two cars that are the same size display radically different occupant survivability when they crash head-on.
If weight was a good predictor of safety, we wouldn’t need crash tests, would we?
P.S. If you cringe when you see a smart car, what do you do when you see a motorcycle? Seriously, when there are 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles driven, how can you get so scared?
f8 flamed:
Yeah, I’m sure that old people, for example, don’t really need power steering. Work out those guns, grandma!
The car weighs 1800lbs. and has narrow tires. If someone needs power steering in that, they probably shouldn’t still be behind the wheel. How do you think old people drove before the introduction of power steering in the 1950s?
Or better yet, don’t buy a Smart! It’s only for fit and hip people who have no need for wimpy things like “air conditioning” and “power options” in a modern vehicle.
Mine has power steering, power brakes, power windows with auto-down, power mirrors (heated, too), power door locks, and a power convertible top that can be raised and lowered at any speed. It has air conditioning as well as heated leather seats. It has an alarm with remote lock/unlock. It has automatic headlights and wipers. The transmission is auto-shifting with paddle shifters for manual control. The factory stereo included an AM/FM/CD changer that plays MP3 CDs, in-dash tweeters, door speakers, and a powered subwoofer. And it was just over $19K out the door.
If you want a stripped car and can only afford $12K, they have a car for you (though it does include ABS, ESC, auto-shift trans, central locking with remote, speed-dependent wipers, rear wiper and defrost, and a few more niceties). Two grand more gets you AC, paddle shifters, panorama roof with sunscreen, power everything, decent AM/FM/CD stereo, etc. If you want it loaded and a convertible, you can get that, too. The price on the car is low. The options are inexpensive. You get to pick and choose to get just what you want. My guess is that you don’t care about facts, though. You just want to argue, be unpleasant, insult people, and say nasty things about their cars (somehow, I bet you wouldn’t do that kind of thing face-to-face).
Jesus Christ dude, between this and your borderline retarded crusade to get people to spell your favorite car’s name “correctly”, I’m beginning to think you weren’t hugged enough as a child.
I’ll avoid flaming you back given the forum rules.
You bought a Smart to get people to tell you how cool your ride is?
No. But one of the reasons why I bought it is because I like interacting with people in a positive, friendly way. Apparently, you’re not into that kind of interchange.
I guess you might be another one of those douchey folks who define their whole lives by what they drive,
So am I defined by my Miata, my smart fortwo, my GMC Yukon, my Buell XB12Ss motorcycle, my Aprilia Atlantic 500 scooter, my Suzuki DRZ400S dualsport motorcycle, or by some vehicle I have yet to buy?
whether it’s a midlife crisis Corvette or a funny-looking overpriced eggmobile.
If the price was too high, demand would be low — yet there has been a waiting list for the smart fortwo. Kind of blows your theory out of the water. If a car that tops out, in convertible form, at under $20K seems pricey to you, perhaps you should stick with older used cars for now.
In any case, good luck with getting people to take your posts seriously.
You got worked up enough about them, so obviously someone takes them too seriously. It’s just an online forum (with rules). So chill.
@fmaxwell,
What we need to teach is engineering…
My point was that the average buyer likely isn’t fully cognizant of the disparity of momentum involved between a micro car like the Smart and a small mid-sized car like the C Class- let alone America’s best selling vehicle (F150) or a carrier full of them. I doubt these results surprise anyone who is.
But let’s take up your argument…
If the Smart were even stronger – say it was a carbon-fibre monocoque a la F1 – it would still suffer the drastic change in direction – due to lack of momentum relative to the larger vehicle. That change in direction would – I submit – subject the occupants to G-Forces that I bet would be quite enough to kill them from the inertia of their 13 pound skull….unless they were equipped with an engineered solution like a HANS device and helmet and were strapped in with 5-point racing harnesses.
Newton always wins.
Now, while that little Smart is rolling off across the highway because it was punted by the mid-sized sedan, what other vehicle’s paths will it cross and how much energy will need to be dissipated in those collisions? What further forces will its occupants be subjected to?
These aren’t equations with outcomes favourable to life.
Now, I think Smarts are cool. But, like my dad used to say: “There is a time and place for almost everything.” I just don’t think that traffic zones mixing even moderate speeds and vehicles of significant mass are places for an intelligent Smart driver to be….or a motorcycle for that matter – even if they have the advantage of maneuverability.
Newton always wins!
Engineering – just a ruse to defeat Newton. ;-}
Then, there is entropy…
If the Smart were even stronger – say it was a carbon-fibre monocoque a la F1 – it would still suffer the drastic change in direction – due to lack of momentum relative to the larger vehicle.
If the smart and what it was impacting were of identical strong construction, that would be true, but it’s never that simple. Even in these tests, the smart dissipated a lot of energy into the other car. Despite the crash being a head-on at 40mph on a slick painted floor, the smart ended up only a short distance from the point of impact, arguing against your scenario of it tumbling across multiple lanes of traffic.
It would be interesting to see the G-forces from these latest tests, but no such data was provided.
Now, I think Smarts are cool. But, like my dad used to say: “There is a time and place for almost everything.” I just don’t think that traffic zones mixing even moderate speeds and vehicles of significant mass are places for an intelligent Smart driver to be….or a motorcycle for that matter – even if they have the advantage of maneuverability.
And this is where we will have to agree to disagree – because our definitions of “acceptable risk” are not the same. Given the death rate of 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles driven and the 23% higher death rates in microcars, the actual increased risk is so far down as to be in the noise (by my way of thinking). Couple that with the fact that high-speed head-on collisions account for such a small percentage of crashes, and this test seems terribly flawed. There have been countless crashes involving smart cars and much larger vehicles in which the smart’s roll-cage style of passenger compartment design has protected the occupants very well.
Keep in mind that SUVs have a significantly higher fatality rate than passenger cars — despite their more massive size and weight. Yet we hardly ever hear people saying “I’d never let my loved ones drive around in an SUV!”
“Newton always wins!”
But this is the only type of crash where the heavier vehicle has a big advantage. In every other type of collision, Newton is on the side of whoever is doing the crashing. The loser is the one being crashed into, whether that person is in a small car or a large one.
And besides, it’s a flawed philosophy to be the biggest and heaviest on the road, because if everyone follows it, you become dramatically less safe.
And, on that note, I’ve turned off my subscription to this thread. I do appreciate the thoughtful and intelligent posts and discussions. Sadly, they seem to be in the minority and I’ve got no more time or energy to deal with the negative people and e-thugs.
@fmaxwell,
the smart ended up only a short distance from the point of impact, arguing against your scenario of it tumbling across multiple lanes of traffic.
How close are the following cars? How fast are they moving? I watched the video. If that happened on busy 4-lane road with a center turn lane in Rhode Island there would have been another 20 cars involved in that “short” distance.
Keep in mind that SUVs have a significantly higher fatality rate than passenger cars — despite their more massive size and weight. Yet we hardly ever hear people saying “I’d never let my loved ones drive around in an SUV!”
Well, I am arguing physics, not mass. Heavy, high cg vehicles that can’t stop or turn but like to tumble are indeed recipes for disaster.
Newton always wins!
In 2008 in America, the death rate per 100-million miles driven was 1.28 – overall. But I am not sure that’s the statistic to take, nor one that looks at just micro car deaths across the country. My argument is against micro-cars in high-density, high-velocity traffic such as inner-city freeways. Places where the patterns are such that there is frequent change from high-speed flow to low-speed congestion (LA? Chicago? Boston? The Cross Bronx? The Merrit?). What are the statistics for micro cars there? Weighing the micro car deaths per 100 mil and including the rate outside Lodi, Ohio in with the rate in LA would provide the LA micro car driver with a – well – an engineered and false sense of safety.
I don’t understand most of this thread. The PR person complained, justifiably, that the IIHS test did not represent a statistically important kind of crash. Therefore, it’s a false conclusion to say that in principle, smaller cars are unsafe.
The truth is, the Smart is a wonderfully safe vehicle in all kinds of crashes, except for one kind: head-on collisions with a much heavier vehicle.
Many popular large vehicles, in contrast, are unsafe in most kinds of accidents, except when the accident opponent is smaller and lighter. A F-150 is thus a one-trick pony. Just like a tank would be.
Check the referenced New Yorker article for statistical evidence that large cars are in the real world often unsafer than compact cars.
@fmaxwell:
I have to start on a note about double-standards. You insist that Smart should be written as “smart”, since that’s how Daimler writes it. However, discussing why large SUVs shouldn’t be allowed to speed, you referred to a “Hummer” when GM always refers to them as a HUMMER. So, what standard do you want to use? Always follow the manufacturer’s preference, or follow the standard rules of English? For my part, I’ll stick with Smart, Hummer, and Mini, because it is consistent with the rules of grammar.
You make some good points about the Smart being unique, and it does come with a lot of safety kit standard, to be sure. Of course, stability control will soon be required on everything, so that particular advantage is short-lived.
You own multiple vehicles, and it’s wonderful that you can afford that privilege. As a second, third, or fourth car, the Smart Fortwo is a good choice. It’s fuel-efficient, easy to park, funky, cute, etc.
However, bear in mind that many people buy econo-cars as their daily driver. As such, the Smart is a poor compromise. It is more fuel-efficient than most of its rivals, but it requires premium fuel. Fine, that’s part of what makes its tiny engine run well. However, that still eats up the cost advantage of its fuel efficiency (which is 4 mpg better, combined, than a Toyota Yaris). Assuming 15,000 miles a year, the EPA predicts fuel costs to be almost identical between the Smart and the Yaris. Also, remember that the miles-per-gallon measure is a curve, not a linear comparison. Using the EPA combined figure, the Smart only burns about 50 gallons less than a Yaris for every 15,000 miles driven.
The Fortwo has some good kit, it’s true, but it gives up a lot in the process. It has less luggage space than its rivals, and no back seat. It doesn’t make me some kind of maxi-van fetishist to point that out, either. I use my Corolla as a daily driver, and even though I’m single and childless, I’ve needed more than one passenger seat on occasion. Back seats are also bonus storage space for many of us, and convenient for certain bulky items. The Smart forces too many compromises for a single-vehicle individual. That’s what other critics are getting at: the Fit, the Versa, the Yaris all offer similar equipment levels at similar, or cheaper prices, but offer more room, better acceleration, and very respectable fuel economy, which makes them a better choice. And sneer all you want about reliability, but if you only have one car — and a job that doesn’t permit telecommuting — then it had better be quite reliable.
I’m glad you enjoy your Smart Fortwo, and that it makes sense for you. For most subcompact car buyers, though, it’s just not a good choice.
People often forget that the easies way to avoid death or injury in a Smart is to never crash into a ’76 Cadillac or Mercedes-Benz C-Class, or a Ford F-150, or a tractor trailer.
sitting@home :
Maximum survivability in a crash is approximately a 10g deceleration (and that’s for a 28 year old Marine, not a 75 year old Blue-rinse).
David Purley would disagree. 10g instantaneous is not that much and people in car accidents readily survive much more force.
Wikipedia:
He survived an estimated 179.8 G’s in 1977 when he decelerated from 173 km/h (108 mph) to 0 in a distance of 66 cm (26 inches) after his throttle got stuck wide open and he hit a wall.[1]. For many years, this was thought to be the highest G-forces ever survived by a human being.[2] He suffered multiple fractures to his legs, pelvis and ribs. Purley recovered to race again although confined his activities to the minor Aurora AFX series of F1 races in Britain.
@fmaxwell
My Dad used to make these back when they were part of GM.
Don’t confuse ANYTHING the IIHS does with science. They are a political animal, a lobbyist group.
Demetri is right when (s)he says: A lighter car will still mess you up if you get t-boned…
In 1978 my mom pulled out in front of a Corolla in her brand new Thunderbird. The impact hit Mom’s front fender area and knocked the entire front end of the T-bird over about a foot. I’m convinced to this day that if Mom was a few feet further out in the intersection and the Corolla T-boned her, it would have killed her.
The Thunderbird never rode the same after the repairs. The Corolla was totalled. But we walked away, including the Corolla driver.
@ 210delray :
“One last thing: I’m not going along with Smart’s silly noncapitalization of the car’s name in the same way I refuse to call a Saturn Aura an “AURA.” And it’s a Mini and a Saab, not a shouted “MINI” or “SAAB.””
Actually SAAB is an acronym Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget so the use of capitals is quite correct. It’s like MG or ABBA in that respect (although I suppose there should be full stops in between each letter)
I never knew that ABBA stood for anything other than overly sweet music that – if listened to long enough – would trigger diabetes in the listener.
@ fmaxwell
Come to Northern Minnesota and “rent” a car that can get to town in 12″ of snow. Not everybody lives in a large metropolitan city. Neither does everybody commute.
@speedlaw
Before you slam the hard-working staff at the IIHS again, I advise that you check their bibliography of published papers, spanning a 40 year record, first. The Institute is all about science, separating fact from mythology in regard to highway safety issues. It does not lobby.
Sure it is funded solely by insurance companies and their trade associations, and I know insurance companies are generally not well liked. After all, you can’t polish and admire your insurance policy in your driveway.
Why is it when a vehicle performs poorly in a crash test the response is always “that type of crash represents less than 1% of crashes that actually occur, we engineer our cars to perform in a variety of…blah blah”. But give it a good rating and that will end up on their commercial.
@ Nicodemus
Yes, technically you’re correct about Saab (SAAB), although I wonder if the acronym still means anything after GM purchased the brand.
But point taken. BMW and GMC are other examples of this.
Well, the argument is not about convincing people to drive a Smart in three feet of snow on rural dirt roads – you do need a truck or SUV for that. Unfortunatley, most SUV’s out there are only driven in the suburbs, the only offroading they ever see is jumping a curb, and they never see any snow, either, ’cause the school is closed.
Point being, people should stop being so concerned about crash safety. As long as it doesn’t fall apart like a cardboard box, you’ve got all the safety margin you need. Any upsizing will cost you money upfront, extra running costs, insurance, and maintenance (what’s cheaper, 3 spark plugs or 8?).
Money(=time) spent on upsizing for safety purposes only would ALWAYS be better spent on making a better driver.
A grand or two can buy you a lot of various driver ed courses, books, or time off on a snowy day so that you can go and practice emergency stops in a parking lot. Knowledge doesn’t depreciate, and you can take it with you to your next car.
Anyway, as much as I dislike Smart personally, the loaded version makes a far better commuter than a stripped-down Camry, IMO. How many of you had a deadly head-on collision crawling at 30mph in fast-ish traffic on I270, anyway?
@carsinamerica
However, discussing why large SUVs shouldn’t be allowed to speed, you referred to a “Hummer” when GM always refers to them as a HUMMER. So, what standard do you want to use?
No double standard. I just made an error. I was unaware that it was written as all caps and I will make it a point to do so in the future.
As to your other points, the vast majority of commuters haul themselves, a cell phone, and maybe a brown-bag lunch. Beyond that, 12 cubic feet of cargo space holds a heck of a lot — like a week’s worth of groceries for two. Fold the passenger seat flat, and you can carry pretty long items, too.
I guess what surprises me is the hostility directed towards the smart car. Reading this forum, you would think that there had never been anything so absurd as a two-seat car with modest cargo capacity. I never saw this kind of fecal matter directed at people who chose BMW Z3s, Mazda Miatas, or Honda CRXs or Del Sols as their commuter car. People commute in those all of the time. I’m kind of taken aback. I realize that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but why get that upset and hostile about a car you don’t own or drive?
Although it’s anecdotal evidence, I just filled my smart today. Almost exactly 39MPG commuting in the DC area, alternating between bumper-to-bumper and high-speed freeway driving. Most smart fortwo owners report considerably higher mileage than the EPA rating. Some models of cars best the EPA ratings. Some fall short. The smart apparently tends to over-perform relative to the ratings.
PhotoJim: There was an interesting article published by the New Yorker a few years ago (easily googled) about how fatality rates per thousand miles driven were higher in large vehicles like the Ford F150 than they were in small vehicles like the Volkswagen Jetta.
Studies have also shown that pickup truck drivers are less likely to wear safety belts and more likely to drive drunk than drivers of other types of vehicles.
Also, there are far more older pickups on the road than other types of vehicles the same age. Here in Pennsylvania, were road salt is used in the winter, it is not uncommon to see full-size Fords and Chevys over 20 years old in everyday use. Those trucks don’t have the safety equipment of modern vehicles.
The idea that a small car is safer because it is more nimble has never been proven to be true.
fmaxwell: The car weighs 1800lbs. and has narrow tires. If someone needs power steering in that, they probably shouldn’t still be behind the wheel. How do you think old people drove before the introduction of power steering in the 1950s?
Actually, they didn’t, or they avoided situations where the car became difficult to steer (for example, parallel parking).
My grandmother had a 1966 Dodge Dart without power steering. When she wanted it put in her garage (which was located behind her house and faced an alley, so it wasn’t possible to pull straight in), she had my father park it for her.
And when my mother – who, at that time was in her early 30s – borrowed that car, she specifically avoided having to parallel park it.
Consider this, the length of a Smart is 47% of the length of a Suburban. This makes you 53% less likely to get t-boned in the first place. It’s also 77% of the width of the Suburban, so you’re 23% less likely to get hit in a frontal or rear collision. That sounds like a major safety feature to me. If Karah Street is reading these comments, you guys should be marketing this.
“The idea that a small car is safer because it is more nimble has never been proven to be true.”
But there is no denying that maneuverability helps to avoid a collision in the first place, and better braking not only helps to avoid one, but if you do crash it will be at a lower speed.
fmaxwell :
April 15th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I never saw this kind of fecal matter directed at people who chose BMW Z3s, Mazda Miatas, or Honda CRXs or Del Sols as their commuter car.
————————————
Because for their price point, they are good for something. They are not totally eclipsed by a competitor.
@ Demetri
Consider this, the length of a Smart is 47% of the length of a Suburban. This makes you 53% less likely to get t-boned in the first place. It’s also 77% of the width of the Suburban, so you’re 23% less likely to get hit in a frontal or rear collision.
Ah, the “smaller target” theory. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work out that way in the real world. Smaller vehicles have higher insurance collision claims losses than larger vehicles.
But there is no denying that maneuverability helps to avoid a collision in the first place, and better braking not only helps to avoid one, but if you do crash it will be at a lower speed.
This is true only if:
a) You are paying attention.
b) You have enough time to react.
c) You make the correct decision (steer, brake, or both).
d) You have a safe place to maneuver toward or stop.
Unfortunately in the real world, 3 out of 4 isn’t good enough and you crash anyway. Also note that about half of all vehicle occupant fatalities occur in single-vehicle crashes, so by definition, the driver lost it, maneuverability notwithstanding.
And since the crash tests involved a midsize car vs. its smaller “brother” from the same manufacturer, it’s hard to argue a Yaris, Fit, or Smart handle or brake better than a Camry, Accord, or C-Class.
“Unfortunately, it doesn’t work out that way in the real world. Smaller vehicles have higher insurance collision claims losses than larger vehicles.”
That’s abstract data that could be explained in a lot of different ways. You have to consider the kind of people who drive smaller vehicles and where they do their driving first of all. It still can’t disprove the math.
“Unfortunately in the real world, 3 out of 4 isn’t good enough and you crash anyway. Also note that about half of all vehicle occupant fatalities occur in single-vehicle crashes, so by definition, the driver lost it, maneuverability notwithstanding.”
In the type of collision illustrated here, all you need to do is steer away; it doesn’t matter if you go through a ditch and hit a tree because anything is better than hitting head on with something moving the opposite direction. As far as single vehicle crashes go, you don’t have to worry about those because the crash tests show that small vehicles are plenty safe in those types of crashes. It’s when big ass vehicles get involved that things get a little more complicated.
FishTank :
April 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I’m guessing you’ve all seen the crash results pitting a Ford F-150 against a Mini in a same-scenario accident. If not, you’re better off in the Mini. Link below…
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
Solely to reiterate that size does not always equal safety.
Uh, they’re comparing the OLD-style F-150, not the one introduced in 2003. The latter did FAR better in tests.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=327
“Uh, they’re comparing the OLD-style F-150 …”
Of which there are still millions on the road. Good for Ford for recognizing the need (or being forced?) to improve their bread-and-butter vehicle’s safety but what took so long?
fmaxwell :
April 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Then don’t get into a wreck! Learn to steer, brake, and accelerate to avoid crashing.
Uh, hate to break this to you, but sometimes it’s the other guy who hits YOU, no matter how good a driver you are.
By the way, what a value proposition the smart presents…
Base price 14K (with A/C, power windows and radio)
Real world MPG – mid 30s
0-60: 14.4 (per Car and Driver)
Car and Driver tested a smart and got an average of 32 mpg.
Now let’s look at a less “enlightened” choice –
Honda Civic four door
Base price $15,000
Real world MPG – high 20s / low 30s
0-60: 8.0 (per Car and Driver)
In other words, for a grand more, you can get a car with (hold on now!!!) a BACK SEAT and a TRUNK, one that doesn’t get much worse mileage, and can actually get out of its own way.
I am firmly “no sale” on the smart.
fmaxwell :
I guess what surprises me is the hostility directed towards the smart car. Reading this forum, you would think that there had never been anything so absurd as a two-seat car with modest cargo capacity. I never saw this kind of fecal matter directed at people who chose BMW Z3s, Mazda Miatas, or Honda CRXs or Del Sols as their commuter car. People commute in those all of the time. I’m kind of taken aback. I realize that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but why get that upset and hostile about a car you don’t own or drive?
I think it has something to do with the incredible level of environmental self-righteousness I’ve seen from Smart car drivers on this forum and others – people who drone on and on about how they’re saving the planet by driving a rolling deathtrap that gets marginally better mileage than a Civic.
And, I hate to remind you of this, but part of the cost of driving is based on shared risk. The more insurance companies have to pay out on repair and injury claims, the more we all have to pay. In a crowded European city like Rome or London, where the largest thing a smart is likely to run into is something the size of a Corolla, the risk of injury isn’t as grave. But here in America, you’re doding three-ton SUVs on interstate highways doing 75 mph. I think people who drive these cars anywhere but super-crowded urban cores like New York or Boston are asking to get killed, all in the name of environmentalism. In so doing, we’re risking increasing the cost of driving for everyone.
Makes no sense to me…particularly given that compact cars today average 30 mpg – far from environmentally irresponsible.
Jeff –
Older versions of current cars often perform more poorly than newer ones. I’d bet you that the offical safetymobile of the ’80s – the Volvo – would probably prove to be far less safe than modern designs.
And, frankly, I’m glad safety is a concern for truck makers now – safer trucks mean less injury claims to insurance companies, and that makes it cheaper for us all to drive.
Mike, I’m aware of the evolution of safety over time. I think FishTank brought up an important point which should be used as a factor by anyone considering a used F-150.
wsn wrote:
Because for their price point, they are good for something. They are not totally eclipsed by a competitor.
Not only is the smart not “eclipsed by a competitor” — it doesn’t even have one.
I want a two-seat convertible with an electric top that can be raised and lowered at highway speeds for under $20K. I want it to have air conditioning, fog lamps, heated leather seats, alloy wheels, ESC, power windows, power brakes with ABS, power steering, power door locks, and an alarm. I want it to get over 40mpg on the highway, be a ULEV vehicle, and have a turning circle of under 30 feet. I also want the car to be as small as possible while still meeting federal safety standards and being comfortable.
You can’t name any car that has those options and even comes close to that price point, can you?
And before you start wasting your time, I actively do not want more seats or more cargo capacity. Many people share this view, explaining why the four seat smart in Europe failed miserably. I don’t think that a Chrysler Sebring convertible is superior to a Mazda Miata — even though the Sebring has four seats, a bigger trunk, and is physically larger and heavier. I don’t think that the Mini would be improved by increasing its size to make it seat five and have greater cargo capacity.
Recommendation: Do your homework next time.
@FreedMike
I think it has something to do with the incredible level of environmental self-righteousness I’ve seen from Smart car drivers on this forum and others – people who drone on and on about how they’re saving the planet by driving a rolling deathtrap that gets marginally better mileage than a Civic.
First off, it’s not a “deathtrap.” That’s an ignorant (flaming) statement. The IIHS rated it “good” for frontal offset test and “good” for side impact test (the highest ranking possible in both cases). It got an “acceptable” for rear test (second highest ranking). The federal government gave it 5 out of 5 stars on side impact rating and 4 out of 5 stars on frontal crash driver side rating. Ten years ago, you probably could not buy an economy car that was that safe.
As to the “marginally better mileage than a Civic” comment, there was at least one child left behind in your math class. The Civic is rated 26/34 and the smart fortwo is rated at 33/41. That makes the fortwo over 27% more fuel efficient around town and over 20% more fuel efficient in town. Cutting our oil consumption by 20-27% would be huge. If you found out that an equally qualified coworker doing the same job as you got paid 20-27% more, would you say that his salary was “marginally better”?
And, I hate to remind you of this, but part of the cost of driving is based on shared risk. The more insurance companies have to pay out on repair and injury claims, the more we all have to pay. In a crowded European city like Rome or London, where the largest thing a smart is likely to run into is something the size of a Corolla, the risk of injury isn’t as grave. But here in America, you’re doding three-ton SUVs on interstate highways doing 75 mph. I think people who drive these cars anywhere but super-crowded urban cores like New York or Boston are asking to get killed, all in the name of environmentalism.
You are right: We need to get those three-ton, gas-gulping, 75MPH SUVs off of our roads! The first step should be raising their premiums to cover the unnecessary damage, injury, and death that they cause. Why should someone in a small, environmentally friendly car die or be permanently crippled just because someone else decided that he/she needed to commute in a 13MPG Suburban or HUMMER?
I know that’s not what you meant. You want to blame their victims in small, environmentally sound cars injured by the huge, speeding SUVs. Just wow. I am reminded of the lawyers who used to defend rapists by saying that the victims were “asking for it” because of what they were wearing.
@freedmike
In other words, for a grand more, you can get a car with (hold on now!!!) a BACK SEAT and a TRUNK
So how does that make it better? Do you think that Miatas would be better with back seats and big trunks? Are motorcycles with sidecars better than motorcycles without them? All that the trunk does is limit your ability to load larger objects that will go into the hatch of a smart car with ease. You see, I, like many people, value the small size of the smart, the Mini, the Miata, etc. We would not pay more, or even the same amount, to get a bigger car.
one that doesn’t get much worse mileage,
27% better fuel mileage around town is pretty darned significant to me.
and can actually get out of its own way.
As long as it gets out of mine, that’s all I care about.
Demetri: But there is no denying that maneuverability helps to avoid a collision in the first place, and better braking not only helps to avoid one, but if you do crash it will be at a lower speed.
On the skidpad, or on this discussion site. Not so much in the real world. Even at relatively low speeds (30 mph or so), accidents happen so quickly that people simply do not have time to react and take advantage of a vehicle’s superior handling capabilities.
Demetri: That’s abstract data that could be explained in a lot of different ways. You have to consider the kind of people who drive smaller vehicles and where they do their driving first of all.
Which is why one also cannot say that pickups are more dangerous than other vehicles without looking at who drives them (mostly males, especially younger ones for the older models), and what they are doing (i.e, driving drunk, or without wearing safety belts).
fmaxell: The Civic is rated 26/34 and the smart fortwo is rated at 33/41. That makes the fortwo over 27% more fuel efficient around town and over 20% more fuel efficient in town. Cutting our oil consumption by 20-27% would be huge.
That assumes that the Smart can completely replace the Civic. Which means that our car would always carry only two people at the most; would not carry any large loads or large amount of luggage; and would not venture on the limited access highways where speeds of 75-80 mph are the norm.
The Smart car is a viable choice for people who do most of their driving around town and never carry more than one passenger, but most of us drive in more varied locales.
We also need a vehicle that can carry more than two people.
Paying the same amount for a car with more room, more comfort, a safer structure and much better reliability (Honda versus Mercedes – no contest) seems like a good deal to me. The slightly lower mileage is worth it to me.
Your desires, however, may vary. If people want to buy Smart cars, more power to them. I’m all for maximum freedom of choice. I just want more flexibility in my vehicle, even if it uses slightly more gas. (And, no, I don’t drive an SUV, or want one. I drive a Honda Accord.)
maxell: You want to blame their victims in small, environmentally sound cars injured by the huge, speeding SUVs.
Um, 75 mph isn’t speeding on most rural limited access higways; it’s pretty much the norm, whether one is traveling in an SUV or a Civic.
@geeber
That assumes that the Smart can completely replace the Civic.
It doesn’t assume anything — other than a 20-27% fuel savings is a huge savings, so saying that the smart gets only marginally better fuel economy is a falsehood.
Which means that our car would always carry only two people at the most; would not carry any large loads or large amount of luggage;
Your argument has no more merit than one criticizing the Civic because it has fewer seats than a minivan.
Being able to imagine a situation where you and three other people would drive somewhere doesn’t mean that you have to own a car that seats four. Take two cars. Rent a car. Use your wife’s car. There are endless solutions that don’t involve every person in a family owning a four seat car.
Note: Cargo space in the smart fortwo is 12 cubic feet. Cargo space in the Civic is 11.5 cubic feet.
and would not venture on the limited access highways where speeds of 75-80 mph are the norm.
Would you testify in court for me, because the cop last week swore that he clocked me on radar going 84mph in my smart fortwo?
Paying the same amount for a car with more room, more comfort, a safer structure and much better reliability (Honda versus Mercedes – no contest) seems like a good deal to me. The slightly lower mileage is worth it to me.
Honda Civics are not as comfortable as my smart fortwo and the interior is not as nice (Edmunds, for example, rated the smart fortwo interior higher than the Civic’s). The Civic seats are cheap feeling, uncomfortable, and lack support.
Which smart fortwo did you try — the pure, passion, or cabrio? What was it that made you less comfortable than you are in a Civic?
As far as reliability, I’ll not jump to conclusions about the smart’s reliability until more data has been compiled. Perhaps you should follow my lead.
If the Civic has a “safer structure,” why did it get a driver’s side four star side impact rating while the smart car got a five star rating? Same test. Same sled striking the side of the vehicle at the same speed.
Um, 75 mph isn’t speeding on most rural limited access higways; it’s pretty much the norm, whether one is traveling in an SUV or a Civic.
Please don’t fabricate things or this discussion becomes pointless: Table of Speed Limits by State
As you can see, less than 25% of states have 75mph limits on rural limited access highways.
fmaxell: It doesn’t assume anything — other than a 20-27% fuel savings is a huge savings, so saying that the smart gets only marginally better fuel economy is a falsehood.
Economy must be weighed against utility. People want well-rounded vehicles. The Smart gets good gas mileage (although it’s not all that impressive weighed against its size and passenger capacity). A Dodge Challenger SRT with the Hemi has impressive straight-line acceleration. They are both basically one-trick ponies. If you want a Smart or Challenger SRT, fine, but most of us want more well-rounded vehicles.
fmaxell: Your argument has no more merit than one criticizing the Civic because it has fewer seats than a minivan.
There is a minimal level of utility that people demand and need from their vehicles. I need at least four seats and storage space on a regular basis. You don’t. That doesn’t mean either of our choices is less valid.
fmaxell: Being able to imagine a situation where you and three other people would drive somewhere doesn’t mean that you have to own a car that seats four.
It’s not called “being able to imagine a situation” – it’s called knowing how I use my car on a regular basis.
fmaxell: Take two cars.
There go any gas savings from using the Smart car.
fmaxell: Rent a car.
Yes, we have time to drive to the rental car place (there isn’t one within walking distance), rent the car, pick it up and then return it – in addition to all of the other activities on our regular schedule. (Note that someone must drive me to the rental car place, and then drive with me when I drop off the car.)
Perhaps a bulter or an assistant comes with the Smart car?
Plus, we have to pay for the rental car, while the Smart car is sitting in its parking space, unused. But even while it sits there we still have to make sure it is insured, inspected and properly licensed (which costs money). So there goes a big chunk of cost savings.
Of couse, it also has to be paid for just like any other vehicle, and $14,000 is still a substantial sum of money for most of us, especially for a vehicle that has rather limited use.
fmaxell: Use your wife’s car.
She is using it regularly, too. The days of the little woman staying at home, like Donna Reed and June Cleaver, are long gone. Maybe people who have enough money to pay for a Smart car in addition to their regular vehicles can afford to have the wife stay at home, but most of us don’t have this option. And most women don’t want to stay at home all day anymore.
fmaxell: There are endless solutions that don’t involve every person in a family owning a four seat car.
Nearly all of which involve major inconveniences or extra expenses.
You wondered why there was so much hostility to the Smart car. I agree that hostility to the car itself is silly. I have no problem with people buying Smart cars or using them regularly. I said so in my previous post.
I understand why someone who lives in downtown Manhattan or San Francisco would consider owning wone.
The problem comes when owners such as yourself start telling us how we don’t really need our current vehicles, or how we are supposed to rearrange our lives around the limitations of the Smart car. Utility, room and convenience are important to car buyers. For many of us, the Smart car doesn’t work. For you, it does. I’m glad for you. That doesn’t mean that your choice is more “valid” than mine, or that I’m supposed to rent a vehicle everytime I need more than two seats.
fmaxell: Note: Cargo space in the smart fortwo is 12 cubic feet. Cargo space in the Civic is 11.5 cubic feet.
Note, even the cheapest Civic coupe and sedan – the DX versions – have a back seat that folds down, thus expanding cargo space, and even if the seate remains in the upright position, cargo can still be stored there.
fmaxell: Would you testify in court for me, because the cop last week swore that he clocked me on radar going 84mph in my smart fortwo?”
Good for you! I’m glad the car can keep up with modern traffic.
fmaxell: As far as reliability, I’ll not jump to conclusions about the smart’s reliability until more data has been compiled. Perhaps you should follow my lead.
Given the respective track records of Honda and Mercedes in this area, I think we can make an educated guess regarding the reliability of the Smart car versus the Civic, particularly since the Civic has earned top scores in this area for many years. Mercedes, in general, has not been able to do a good job of getting good reliability out of less expensive cars. It has trouble engineering reliability into a vehicle when cost objectives must be met.
fmaxell: If the Civic has a “safer structure,” why did it get a driver’s side four star side impact rating while the smart car got a five star rating? Same test. Same sled striking the side of the vehicle at the same speed.
That’s one test. How about head-on collisions, rollovers, rear-end collision and frontal offset collisions? And aren’t those adjusted for weight (meaning the collision simulates the vehicle being hit by a vehicle of similar weight?)
fmaxell: Please don’t fabricate things or this discussion becomes pointless: Table of Speed Limits by State
As you can see, less than 25% of states have 75mph limits on rural limited access highways.
Meaningless. It helps to understand how people drive in the real world.
In Pennsylvania, the official speed limit is 65 mph on limited access highways, but the typical speed is 75 mph. I know; I drive on I-81, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-83 regularly. When I drove out west (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) this past summer during our vacation, the average speed on limited access highways was 80+ mph.
The posted speed limit on limited access highways is largely meaningless. Anyone who believes that 65 mph really represents the maximum safe speed on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, for example, was probably also waiting for the Easter Bunny this past Sunday. Informed drivers understand this (and so do the police – I regularly drive by the SState Police at 75 mph, and have yet to receive a ticket).
@geeber
There is a minimal level of utility that people demand and need from their vehicles. I need at least four seats and storage space on a regular basis. You don’t. That doesn’t mean either of our choices is less valid.
Thank you! That’s been my point all along. There have been countless posts saying what a stupid choice the smart is for anyone, regardless of their needs or priorities.
I never said that the smart car was the right vehicle for everyone or that it is always a better choice than a Civic, Yaris, Fit, Corolla, minivan, Miata, Corvette, Cherokee, Ferrari, bicycle, moped, motorcycle, etc.
It is the best choice for some people who are dismissing it out of hand. For example, there are people who buy full size pickup trucks with two seats. They commute to work in them carrying nothing bigger than a bag lunch or a laptop. They do this 5 days a week all year long. Then they pat themselves on the back for their excellent decision making because twice a year they go to Home Depot and buy some 4×8 sheet goods.
Yes, we have time to drive to the rental car place (there isn’t one within walking distance), rent the car, pick it up and then return it – in addition to all of the other activities on our regular schedule.
Oh the horror of it all! Yes, you do have to do that, just like everyone else at that rental counter. Or are you just more important than all of those people? God alone knows what you would do if your car was ever in the shop.
She is using it regularly, too. The days of the little woman staying at home, like Donna Reed and June Cleaver, are long gone.
If you can’t get your wife to swap cars with you a few times a year, you might want to consider marriage counseling. I cannot imagine my girlfriend turning down such a reasonable request from me.
Taking two cars, renting a car, renting a truck, using a larger car belonging to another family member are all perfectly valid choices if the need is infrequent — despite all of your whining about the inconvenience and cost. Twice last year I had to rent a 22′-24′ truck. I had to get someone to drive me to the rental location. I had to pay for the truck. My car sat unused while I had the truck. Oh the horror of it all! Please God, tell me why are you testing me in this cruel way? Are you punishing me for driving a small, fuel-efficient car? I guess I should have just bought a 24′ box truck instead of being so foolish as to buy a smart car.
Meaningless. It helps to understand how people drive in the real world.
Don’t back-pedal. You wrote “Um, 75 mph isn’t speeding on most rural limited access highways.” If the speed limit is 65mph, 75mph is speeding. Now you’re arguing that it’s not speeding because everyone else does it. The “everyone else does it” argument really shouldn’t be used much past the 7th grade. We need to start cracking down on the drivers of large vehicles who are going over the limit. The risk that they pose to drivers of small vehicles (Yaris, Fit, smart fortwo, Versa) — especially older, less safe ones — is too great when they speed.
I honestly don’t think that we are in such disagreement as the tone of our messages might indicate.There are some people for whom the smart fortwo would be an idiotic choice. For example, real estate agents, single parents with three kids, construction workers, and people who need to tow a trailer.
On the other hand, there are many people for whom the smart is one of the best choices. Multi-car families could often benefit from having one of the vehicles be a smart fortwo. So could many commuters who ride to work alone. City dwellers that need to deal with crowded streets and limited parking are often well-served by smart cars.
I note that you did not answer my question about what smart fortwo you had been in. Honest answer, please: Have you ever actually sat in one?
Thank you! That’s been my point all along. There have been countless posts saying what a stupid choice the smart is for anyone, regardless of their needs or priorities.
fmaxell: I never said that the smart car was the right vehicle for everyone or that it is always a better choice than a Civic, Yaris, Fit, Corolla, minivan, Miata, Corvette, Cherokee, Ferrari, bicycle, moped, motorcycle, etc.
Congratulations! We agree. Now please stop telling others that we just need to rent cars regularly or swap them in order to own a Smart, and you’ll be all the way home.
fmaxell: It is the best choice for some people who are dismissing it out of hand. For example, there are people who buy full size pickup trucks with two seats. They commute to work in them carrying nothing bigger than a bag lunch or a laptop. They do this 5 days a week all year long. Then they pat themselves on the back for their excellent decision making because twice a year they go to Home Depot and buy some 4×8 sheet goods.
Perhaps it has never occurred to you that some people like the way big pickups drive?
fmaxell: Oh the horror of it all! Yes, you do have to do that, just like everyone else at that rental counter. Or are you just more important than all of those people?
The self-importance comes from telling someone else how to arrange their lives around a certain type of vehicle. Note that I am not the one doing that.
fmaxell: God alone knows what you would do if your car was ever in the shop.
It’s a Honda; it doesn’t spend much time there. I’m not driving a Mercedes product. ;-)
fmaxell: If you can’t get your wife to swap cars with you a few times a year, you might want to consider marriage counseling. I cannot imagine my girlfriend turning down such a reasonable request from me.
In the real world, it will be more than a few times a year.
fmaxell: Taking two cars, renting a car, renting a truck, using a larger car belonging to another family member are all perfectly valid choices if the need is infrequent — despite all of your whining about the inconvenience and cost.
Or, better yet, owning a car that eliminates the need to do those things in the first place.
fmaxell: Don’t back-pedal. You wrote “Um, 75 mph isn’t speeding on most rural limited access highways.” If the speed limit is 65mph, 75mph is speeding.
You need to tell that the State Police who don’t pull me over when I drive at that speed. Not to mention Pennsylvania’s governor, who regularly has his chauffeured Cadillac DTS travel at 80+ mph plus on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
fmaxell: Now you’re arguing that it’s not speeding because everyone else does it.
Yes, because sophisticated, informed drivers understand that modern roads can handle higher speeds, and are therefore voting with their right foot. That’s the vote that matters.
fmaxell: The “everyone else does it” argument really shouldn’t be used much past the 7th grade.
Even my six-year-old nephew can read two numbers on a sign. Informed drivers realize that believing that those numbers have any relevance to modern traffic conditions on limited access highways is like believing in the Easter Bunny.
Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were the law, too. Dumb people squawked, “It’s the law.” Smart people thought for themselves.
fmaxell: What I’m saying is that we need to start cracking down on the drivers of large vehicles who are going over the limit. The risk that they pose to drivers of small vehicles (Yaris, Fit, smart fortwo, Versa) — especially older, less safe ones — is too great when they speed. Move their HUMMERS, pickup trucks, box vans, etc. over to the right lanes and
The risk is posed when someone is driving slower than the flow of traffic. Again, this is how it works in the real world.
The typical speed on most limited access highways is 75 mph. Drivers of other vehicles – whether behind the wheel of a Smart car, or Tahoe – need to get with the program.
fmaxell: On the other hand, there are many people for whom the smart is one of the best choices. Multi-car families could often benefit from having one of the vehicles be a smart fortwo. So could many commuters who ride to work alone. City dwellers that need to deal with crowded streets and limited parking are often well-served by smart cars.
Then they should buy one. I have no objection to anyone buying a Smart car. Just as I have no objection to anyone buying a Corvette, Accord, Fusion or Escape.
fmaxell: I note that you did not answer my question about what smart fortwo you had been in. Honest answer, please: Have you ever actually sat in one?
I sat in one at the auto show. It wasn’t horrible – Mercedes products have good ergonomics, and this was no exception. But a two-seater doesn’t meet my needs, and I doubt that is as quiet or smooth as my Accord. For the extra money, I’d go for a Civic DX sedan. Much more versatility, room and performance for not much more money. And it still gets very good fuel economy. Not as much as a Smart car, obviously, but quite good when weighed against its other capabilities.
@geeber
Now please stop telling others that we just need to rent cars regularly or swap them in order to own a Smart, and you’ll be all the way home.
Don’t make straw man arguments that you attribute to me. I said that “some people” who have an “infrequent” need to carry more than two people should consider doing that.
Perhaps it has never occurred to you that some people like the way big pickups drive?
Oh, well if they like it, that fully justifies wasting fuel, polluting, and driving up the cost of everything from gasoline to home heating oil.
The self-importance comes from telling someone else how to arrange their lives around a certain type of vehicle. Note that I am not the one doing that.
Nor am I. I’m simply showing that the smart is a viable alternative even for people who have an infrequent need to haul lots of people or stuff.
It’s a Honda; it doesn’t spend much time there. I’m not driving a Mercedes product. ;-)
Mercedes owners must be so jealous when you pull up next to them. ;)
In the real world, it will be more than a few times a year.
I live in “the real world” and it’s not more than a few times a year — so it has nothing to do with some fantasy world or unrealistic view of life. Your “real world” and mine are (thankfully) different.
Or, better yet, owning a car that eliminates the need to do those things in the first place.
No, that is not “better.” If your need is infrequent, it’s better to drive a more fuel-efficient car and borrow or rent a larger vehicle (full-size, minivan, box truck, flatbed, etc.) a few times each year.
You need to tell that the State Police who don’t pull me over when I drive at that speed.
If you are traveling 75mph in a 65mph zone, you are speeding — whether you are ticketed or not. If you roll through a stop sign without stopping, you still violated the law, even if you think it was safe and that the law should not apply to you.
Not to mention Pennsylvania’s governor, who regularly has his chauffeured Cadillac DTS travel at 80+ mph plus on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
I sense an interesting dinnertime conversation at your house: “But Honey, Elliot Spitzer had sex with a prostitute and was not charged with a crime, so I didn’t do anything wrong.”
Yes, because sophisticated, informed drivers understand that modern roads can handle higher speeds, and are therefore voting with their right foot. That’s the vote that matters.
So now the 75mph SUVs are driven by “sophisticated, informed drivers.” If it’s so safe, then I guess they don’t pose a threat to drivers of smart fortwos, Toyota IQs, Geo Metros, etc. They won’t lose control of their 3-ton, 75mph SUVs because of their sophistication and skill.
Even my six-year-old nephew can read two numbers on a sign.
Now if only his kindergarten teacher taught him that rules apply to everyone — even people who think that they are special or above the law.
Informed drivers realize that believing that those numbers have any relevance to modern traffic conditions on limited access highways is like believing in the Easter Bunny.
You’re still speeding. You’re still breaking the law. And now you’re rationalizing.
Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were the law, too. Dumb people squawked, “It’s the law.” Smart people thought for themselves.
Because someone driving an ill-handling, 3-ton SUV at the less than 10mph over the speed limit is the moral and intellectual equivalent of a slave owner.
The risk is posed when someone is driving slower than the flow of traffic. Again, this is how it works in the real world.
When a 75mph three ton SUV strikes something, it imparts 33% more energy than it would had it been traveling at the 65mph speed limit. The stopping distance is similarly increased. That’s the real world — one in which the laws of physics apply.
In the real world, vehicles have different performance envelopes. The maximum safe speed for a small, nimble car is different than the maximum safe speed for a dump truck, HUMMER, or semi. That’s why there is a “slow lane” and a “fast lane.” It’s why many roads have different speed limits for cars and trucks. It’s why large vehicles should be segregated from small ones — and why many highways have prohibitions against trucks operating in the left lane.
fmaxell: Don’t make straw man arguments that you attribute to me. I said that “some people” who have an “infrequent” need to carry more than two people should consider doing that.
If you don’t want that argument attributed to you, then don’t make posts like this:
Being able to imagine a situation where you and three other people would drive somewhere doesn’t mean that you have to own a car that seats four. Take two cars. Rent a car. Use your wife’s car. There are endless solutions that don’t involve every person in a family owning a four seat car.
You weren’t directing it at “some people,” you were directing it at me.
fmaxell: Oh, well if they like it, that fully justifies wasting fuel, polluting, and driving up the cost of everything from gasoline to home heating oil.
All vehicles are very clean today. A 2009 Ford F-150 emits fewer pollutants running than a 1969 Ford Galaxie emitted while sitting without the engine running (because of fuel vapor leakage). Even as light truck sales increased, air quality improved throughout the country, as documented by the EPA.
Blaming pickup trucks for pollution is a non-starter.
Pickup truck drivers aren’t wasting energy if they are using a vehicle that they enjoy driving, and they are using its capabilities. Just because they aren’t driving around with a full load in the bed all the time doesn’t mean that they aren’t using the capabilities of a truck on a regular basis.
fmaxell: Mercedes owners must be so jealous when you pull up next to them. ;)
If they compared how much we are spending on maintenance and repairs for our respective vehicles, I’m sure that they would be. We have better things to spend money on than car repairs and expensive maintenance visits.
fmaxell: I live in “the real world” and it’s not more than a few times a year — so it has nothing to do with some fantasy world or unrealistic view of life.
For YOU it’s not more than a few times a year. You have no idea how other couples live.
fmaxell: No, that is not “better.” If your need is infrequent, it’s better to drive a more fuel-efficient car and borrow or rent a larger vehicle (full-size, minivan, box truck, flatbed, etc.) a few times each year.
You need to start that paragraph with “In my opinion” for it to be accurate.
fmaxell: If you are traveling 75mph in a 65mph zone, you are speeding — whether you are ticketed or not. If you roll through a stop sign without stopping, you still violated the law, even if you think it was safe and that the law should not apply to you.
Rolling through a stop sign is dangerous. Driving 75 mph on a limited access highway isn’t. It helps to understand this crucial difference.
fmaxell: I sense an interesting dinnertime conversation at your house: “But Honey, Elliot Spitzer had sex with a prostitute and was not charged with a crime, so I didn’t do anything wrong.”
No, because in our house, we are informed about traffic safety issue, so we realize that driving 80 mph on the Pennsylvania Turnpike isn’t dangerous, and a completely different scenario than soliciting prostitutes.
fmaxell: So now the 75mph SUVs are driven by “sophisticated, informed drivers.” If it’s so safe, then I guess they don’t pose a threat to drivers of smart fortwos, Toyota IQs, Geo Metros, etc. They won’t lose control of their 3-ton, 75mph SUVs because of their sophistication and skill.
It’s helpful to actually be familiar with the state of highway safety. The number of deaths per 100 million miles driven is at a record low figure. Meanwhile, the number of SUVs on the highway is at record highs, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the nation’s vehicular fleet. And all vehicles are driving faster than ever.
If all of those SUVs really were out-of-control, then the nation’s fatality rate wouldn’t be at record lows.
fmaxell: Now if only his kindergarten teacher taught him that rules apply to everyone — even people who think that they are special or above the law.
I would hope she teaches him to be informed and question what he hears…so that he won’t be clueless enough to believe that driving 75 mph on a limited access highway is dangerous.
Because someone driving an ill-handling, 3-ton SUV at the less than 10mph over the speed limit is the moral and intellectual equivalent of a slave owner.
A little education here – the interstate highway system was designed to allow the typical 1956 car to travel at 75 mph. Newsflash – an SUV has superior braking, handling and safety features compared to a 1956 car.
You might find it helpful to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of automotive history and traffic safety.
fmaxell: When a 75mph three ton SUV strikes something, it imparts 33% more energy than it would had it been traveling at the 65mph speed limit. The stopping distance is similarly increased. That’s the real world — one in which the laws of physics apply.
Except that, as shown by the real-world traffic fatalities, this isn’t happening – or at least enough to make the roads more dangerous. The roads are safer than ever. Physics problems are interesting, but informed drivers know what is really happening in the real world.
fmaxell: In the real world, vehicles have different performance envelopes. The maximum safe speed for a small, nimble car is different than the maximum safe speed for a dump truck, HUMMER, or semi.
Except for the semi and the dump truck, those envelopes aren’t reached at 75 mph on a limited access highway.
Incidentally, even if SUVs do go away – and sales are falling – dump trucks and semis aren’t going away anytime soon. So there will still be substantial size differentials between vehicles. Of course, I’m not worried about this, because I don’t meander along at 65 mph and then wail about being “threatened” by larger vehicles. It helps to know how to drive a car…
Guys, how much longer are you planning on going back and forth? How about agreeing to disagree?
Jeff Puthuff
But they’ve only just gotten to the “you’re a Nazi/slave owner” bit.
You weren’t directing it at “some people,” you were directing it at me.
I used the word “you” the way that many modern authors do — to avoid clumsy constructs with “one could,” “he/she might,” etc.
All vehicles are very clean today.
Should I nitpick “all vehicles” apart for the literal interpretation to include everything from lawn tractors to semis to the space shuttle? Nah, I like us having different styles.
So full size pickup trucks meet ULEV standards? They don’t pollute more than a smart or a Civic? Comparing them to a 40 year old car is hardly significant. You could have compared that 1969 Ford to a 1930s Ford and said how it it was “very clean” by comparison.
Even as light truck sales increased, air quality improved throughout the country, as documented by the EPA.
Pollution is additive. That it is lower today does not mean that it is low enough (see “global warming” in Google).
Pickup truck drivers aren’t wasting energy if they are using a vehicle that they enjoy driving, and they are using its capabilities.
Commuting in an unloaded full-size pickup truck is not using its capabilities. You may enjoy a cool breeze in your home, but if you leave the windows open all winter with the furnace on full blast, you’re still wasting energy.
For YOU it’s not more than a few times a year. You have no idea how other couples live.
So why, when quoting me, did you cut off the sentence where I said “Your “real world” and mine are (thankfully) different.”? Oh, that’s right: You have no scruples and would rather misrepresent my quotes than debate honestly. You’d rather pretend I didn’t say that so that you could repeat it with slightly different wording as if it were your original thought. That speaks volumes about the kind of man you are.
Rolling through a stop sign is dangerous. Driving 75 mph on a limited access highway isn’t.
So if some other self-proclaimed “sophisticated and informed driver” disagrees with you and thinks they are safe rolling through a stop sign, then it’s okay for them to do so?
No, because in our house, we are informed about traffic safety issue, so we realize that driving 80 mph on the Pennsylvania Turnpike isn’t dangerous, and a completely different scenario than soliciting prostitutes.
You argued that exceeding the speed limit was okay because of “Pennsylvania’s governor, who regularly has his chauffeured Cadillac DTS travel at 80+ mph plus on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.” So are you now withdrawing that justification (now that I proved it fallacious)?
A little education here – the interstate highway system was designed to allow the typical 1956 car to travel at 75 mph. Newsflash – an SUV has superior braking, handling and safety features compared to a 1956 car.
Wrong. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 called for the construction of roads to handle traffic speeds from 50mph to 70mph. And that was with a death rate that Americans would never tolerate today.
In 1966, the death rate was at 5.5 per 100 million miles driven. Now it’s at ~1.5. Since death rates in the smart fortwo are better than for any passenger car made in 1966, it must be safe enough for you, your family, and anyone else, right?
You might find it helpful to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of automotive history and traffic safety.
My knowledge of automotive history and traffic safety far exceeds yours (see above).
Except that, as shown by the real-world traffic fatalities, this isn’t happening – or at least enough to make the roads more dangerous. The roads are safer than ever. Physics problems are interesting, but informed drivers know what is really happening in the real world.
You are not “informed.” You are not knowledgeable. You are not sophisticated. You are someone who does not even understand that kinetic energy is a function of the square of the speed (KE = .5 x mass * velocity^2). You think that “informed drivers” have some special physics that apply to them.
You have no definition of what is an acceptable death rate. You don’t understand the difference between road safety and vehicle safety. You don’t understand that lower death rates don’t mean lower accident rates. You don’t get that an SUV driver could avoid accidents at 65mph that he could not avoid at 75mph. Engineering, statistics, cars, roads, driving… it’s all a big mystery to you.
Except for the semi and the dump truck, those envelopes aren’t reached at 75 mph on a limited access highway.
They are reached and exceeded when the SUV driver is unable to brake as fast as the car in front of him in an emergency. They are reached and exceeded when he swerves to avoid something in the road (deer, washing machine, lumber that just fell off of a flatbed, etc.) and spins, slides, rolls, or some combination of the three.
Incidentally, even if SUVs do go away – and sales are falling – dump trucks and semis aren’t going away anytime soon.
That’s why their drivers are trained and pass more rigorous tests than car drivers. It’s why many interstates don’t permit them in the fast lane. And there are a tiny number of them compared to SUVs.
Of course, I’m not worried about this, because I don’t meander along at 65 mph and then wail about being “threatened” by larger vehicles.
You’re the one whimpering about how unsafe you would feel in a smart car. I’m the one driving a smart car every day in a 70+ mile round trip commute through some of the busiest roads in the nation.
It helps to know how to drive a car…
Right, Rain Man, you’re an excellent driver.
I’ve held racing licenses and gone up against commuter blowhards who usually end up spinning or sliding off of the track. I’m sure you’d just be another of them.
fmaxwell :
Not only is the smart not “eclipsed by a competitor” — it doesn’t even have one.
I want a two-seat convertible with an electric top that can be raised and lowered at highway speeds for under $20K. I want it to have air conditioning, fog lamps, heated leather seats, alloy wheels, ESC, power windows, power brakes with ABS, power steering, power door locks, and an alarm. I want it to get over 40mpg on the highway, be a ULEV vehicle, and have a turning circle of under 30 feet. I also want the car to be as small as possible while still meeting federal safety standards and being comfortable.
—————————————–
OK, I concede. How about this: the Smart convertible is a unique vehicle for those couldn’t cough up another couple thousand to buy a Miata.
The non-convertible smart is still very stupid. It’s completely eclipsed by a Honda Fit. “A turning circle of under 30 feet” isn’t an advantage. The Fit’s turning circle is small enough for all legal driving.
OK, I concede. How about this: the Smart convertible is a unique vehicle for those couldn’t cough up another couple thousand to buy a Miata.
I’m at kind of an advantage here because I own both. Very different cars. The Miata is a stripped-down sports car. Way less legroom and headroom. And, way less visibility, both of the car and from the driver’s seat. Mileage on the Miata is 21/28 vs. the smart’s 34/41.
The MSRP for the base smart fortwo cabrio is $16,990. The Miata similarly equipped is $26,180 (and the Miata still lacks a lot of stuff like heated leather seats, automatic wipers and headlights, ESC, etc.) I’ll not be a jerk about it and nickel and dime it up, because we’re already approaching $10K difference.
The non-convertible smart is still very stupid. It’s completely eclipsed by a Honda Fit.
So if I were deciding between the two, I should ignore the fact that the smart seats are more comfortable to me and that I like the smart’s quirky looks and find the Honda unattractive? I should ignore the fact that the Honda Fit gets 28/35mpg vs. the smart fortwo’s 33/41mpg? I’m supposed to look past the Fit’s dinky doors that make entry and exit more difficult and the pillar that impedes my visibility to the side (I’m 6’2″)? And, after all of that, I’m supposed to ignore the fact that the Fit Sport w. auto trans costs almost $4K more than the comparably equipped smart fortwo passion?
The Fit is only better than the smart if you like it better (and the price difference doesn’t bother you). I don’t like it (much less like it better). I could tick off a list of features, capacities, etc. in some car showing it’s advantages over a Fit, but that does not mean that it’s a superior car or that it would be a better choice for you.
The smart fortwo coupe is only a “stupid” choice if the buyer would have been happier with a different competing vehicle. You can’t take the emotion out of car buying.
OK, I know this posting is over a year old, but…
One of the comments was from someone who would rather have his Mustang over a smart. Well, recently there was a report of a ~60 MPH head-on collision between a Mustang (unknown flavor) and a smart ForTwo. The ForTwo driver opened the door, got out, and looked at the damage. The Mustang driver was unconscious, and left in an ambulance…