Find Reviews by Make:
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
Seriously, what’s the point. A frontal crash against a solid concrete wall at 70 mph and you’re dead. No matter what you drive.
As we have seen from other recent crash test videos of small cars, they meet the letter of the law, but real world results may vary.
Did they crash that convertible first? It looked liked the front end was already smashed in!
I noticed how he hesitates a second (at 3:13) and then skips describing what we all want to know: the intrustion into the Smart’s driver’s space. He then goes to the front and other side to jabber about that; there’s even an edit at that point. I wonder if this guy and Smart hoped to bray about the driver’s space surviving.
I wish they had access to a Town Car – that would have been enlightening.
Notice that the Smart was left-hand drive, while the (Corsa?) was right-hand.
Took some of the “science” out of the comparison, but still interesting (I love victimless crashes).
Great… So when your driving along in your rolling coffin,you can take some comfort in knowing that the junk yard might salvage some parts.To sell to some other fool,so he can keep his death trap on the road.Hey!a good undertaker may even pull off an open casket.
Recycling always good for the environment.
The standard for survivability is not whether the door opens or not. Doors don;t buy cars, people do and right now they are being fed a pack of lies about how you can have it all with this car. Like safety, economy, reliability and easy parking. The last one is for certain, the first two are doubtful and the third remains to be seen.
This matchbox toy should get 80 MPG but it only manages about 40. A Ford Escort can do that and I’d rather be in the Escort in a crash than Roll-over-mobile any day.
GS650G :
The standard for survivability is not whether the door opens or not.
Great point. This ‘guy’ is all hung up over that; a sign of a marketing slant, and not ‘the truth.’
EMS people take note: It’s easier to remove corpses from the Smart car.
This Fifth Gear clip is a few years old. The Smart is LHD as it was only available LHD when launched and were sold in the UK as such. RHD versions came later.
@StevenJJ
I guess the point was, that since the impact occured on the left side of the car, a right hand drive vehicle would fare slightly better.
But in any case, nobody would survive a crash like that no matter which car they’re driving. Think about this:
When you drop a car from 150 ft above the ground, it’ll almost hit 70 mph on impact (if we ignore friction that is, so in real life it would have to be even higher).
Who really thinks that they could survive a 150 ft drop in ANY car? So what was the point of this “crash test” again?
The conclusion is obvious. We should all be driving concrete barriers.
Like the man says you’ll safe as a nut. what kind of nut drives one of these at seventy miles an hour is open to debate but I would bet money on a dead one.
Seriously, what’s the point. A frontal crash against a solid concrete wall at 70 mph and you’re dead. No matter what you drive.
Thank you for saying that, because it’s something people forget when discussing the smart. The second thing they forget is that 70mph sustained is not a common environment for a smart car, and that in more common crash situations it’s no less safe than most compact and subcompact cars, and certainly much safer than the tin-can compacts and midsizers of the eighties and nineties
Can we show a picture of someone trying to parallel-park an Tahoe in Paris next? You know, just to be fair?
Who thinks this is safer then a motorcycle? or a scooter? Thats really the way I judge this…a 4 wheeled scooter with a roof so that its not as cold or wet. safety is a complete after thought, wear a helmet! ha
It really should be getting somewhere north of 65mpg considering the weight and performance level or lack there of.
psharjinian: Can we show a picture of someone trying to parallel-park an Tahoe in Paris next? You know, just to be fair?
I didn’t realize that parallel parking often resulted in fatal accidents…
I didn’t realize that parallel parking often resulted in fatal accidents…
In a Tahoe? Anyone under four feet tall is in trouble once you start reversing. I actually watched an lifted F-350 drive up and onto the hood of a Civic that she claimed she didn’t see.
The point being: running a smart in a concrete block or another vehicle at 70mph with no attempt at braking is a nonsensical test, just as trying to park a Tahoe a space designed from a Clio is. You’re deliberately rigging a test for psycological impact, not for useful results.
This car is tested to be reasonably safe by multiple safety authorities. Anything else, pro or con, is just pandering to people’s insecurities.
The point is not so difficult to get.
The smart is constructed extremely solid. The passenger cabin remains mostly intact, even at a speed of 70mph! That means, that the fear of people that they would be “crashed” within the smart cabin is not correct – the car is well constructed.
And if you have a crash at 70mph, you would be dead in any car. As the smart itself survives that crash reasonably well intact it means, that any crash at a lower speed will give you enough safety to survive.
The second thing they forget is that 70mph sustained is not a common environment for a smart car
I-65. Indiana. Pouring rain. Dusk. I saw a Smart happily zipping along at 75 MPH, weaving around the semis just like everyone else does.
Didn’t see if the driver was chain smoking while eating solid lard, shooting up with dirty needles, and insulting Mafia dons on his cell phone, but I wouldn’t have been surprised.
The important point is: if you can prevent intrusion, then you’re a long way toward having a very safe car. Ask any driver of a F1 car.
Energy absorption is another matter, but it’s only part of the story. An over-estimated part, in my opinion. Maybe I’m using an unfair juxtaposition — but think of Lady Di.
I-65. Indiana. Pouring rain. Dusk. I saw a Smart happily zipping along at 75 MPH, weaving around the semis just like everyone else does.
Common is not the same as known. I saw a Dodge Ram 2500HD outside of Stuttgart, but it doesn’t mean that said truck is in it’s normal environment.
That said, I see Smarts on highway 401 (not as often as just about anything else, but they’re there) in Ontario, and these are the previous-gen diesel models that take nearly sixteen seconds to hit 100km/h. Again, I don’t see them often, perhaps about as much as motorcycles, and I’d much rather be in the Smart than on a bike or an older Honda Civic.
psharjinian: In a Tahoe? Anyone under four feet tall is in trouble once you start reversing.
So is anyone under three feet tall (i.e., a small child) once the driver starts reversing in a Smart car.
psharjinian: The point being: running a smart in a concrete block or another vehicle at 70mph with no attempt at braking is a nonsensical test, just as trying to park a Tahoe a space designed from a Clio is. You’re deliberately rigging a test for psycological impact, not for useful results.
Head-on collisions with objects, regardless of the final speed, are far more likely to have a fatal outcome than parallel parking.
This is why the government agencies and insurance company associations conduct tests of how a vehicle performs in a head-on collision.
Axel:
“Didn’t see if the driver was chain smoking while eating solid lard, shooting up with dirty needles, and insulting Mafia dons on his cell phone, but I wouldn’t have been surprised.”
That’s the funniest way of saying “Death Wish” for sure!
We learned that walnuts are the safest nuts… IN THE WUUHHHLD!
What I really gathered from the clip was to illustrate “vehicle incompatibility” issues. Yes the car is strong and safe, providing you crash it into what its designed to protect you from. This is a city car and will for sure stand up to city driving. But jackassing on the highway is going to get you killed! There just isn’t enough to absorb the impact, and keep the impact away from the cabin of that car.
Moral of the story, keep the city cars in the city.