2008 Smart commuter car gets 40 mpg and will selling in USA for $12k.

If one does a proper search one will discover the so called roll over craze,
pushed by the safety Nazis, was a ruse brought on by faulty Firestone tires
used primarily on SUVs.

The fact is far more cars are involved in rollover type accidents than SUVs.
The fact is the majority of rollover accidents, among all types of vehicles
is the result of being struck by another vehicle or running up or down a
grade and not the type of vehicle. The fact is NO vehicle has a tendency to
rollover. The opposite is true, if a vehicle is tipped, even up to a 45
degrees or more, it has a propensity to fall back upon its wheels.

If rising the center of gravity on a vehicle increased the chance it would
rollover, one should expect to see box trucks and six wheels rolling over
every day. The fact is the center of gravity of any vehicle is somewhere
just above the centerline of the drive train . On the average SUV that
would be less than two inches high than the average car. The propensity of
a vehicle to rollover vis a v another has more to do with its wheelbase than
its height. The SUV that would role first would be those like the Rav4 or
Jeep rather than an Explorer or Sequa in any event

The fact is the single most likely accident, that any particular vehicle
will be involved in its lifetime, is a full frontal collision. In that type
of collision the larger and heaver the vehicle the more likely properly
belted passengers will escape injury or death

One reason the Senate choose not to raise the CAFE standard for light trucks
several years ago was the injury and death rate among properly belted
passengers and children had dropped significantly over the past ten years.
That improved rate was attributed to the fact more of them were riding in
the larger safer SUVs.

Unfortunately recent action by the Senate will result in more poorer people
riding in more of the smaller less safe vehicles, as in the seventies, and
the injury and death rate will increase again as a result. The rich will
simply pay the $1,000 gas-guzzler, tax as they do today on many luxury cars,
and continue to buy the large safer cars they want and can afford

On can search the Congressional record for the facts.

mike

 

This has got to be the most bullshit troll of 'Useful Info'

What the **** does this have to do with the world's energy balance? My
son drives a TDI Jetta, so what! How safe is safe? So, one hundred posts
of useless drooling involving self importance. Yet, no cognisense of the
bigger picture. So human.......

 

This has got to be the most bullshit troll of 'Useful Info'

What the **** does this have to do with the world's energy balance? My
son drives a TDI Jetta, so what! How safe is safe? So, one hundred posts
of useless drooling involving self importance. Yet, no cognisense of the
bigger picture. So human.......

 

I paid $15G for a 2005 tC last September. May not get 40+ MPG, but it sure
is a BLAST!!!

I paid $1400 in 2002 for a '95 Tercel w/99,000 on it. That got 45 MPG.
Wasn't as much fun as a tC, but was a nice car!

 

I paid $15G for a 2005 tC last September. May not get 40+ MPG, but it sure
is a BLAST!!!

I paid $1400 in 2002 for a '95 Tercel w/99,000 on it. That got 45 MPG.
Wasn't as much fun as a tC, but was a nice car!

 

My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than
$12K.

Eric

 

My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than
$12K.

Eric

 

We're not even allowed to bring bikes into commercial buildings in
NYC, which is why my bike is parked outside. On the other hand, I
think my bike is bigger so perhaps this will be allowed.

 

We're not even allowed to bring bikes into commercial buildings in
NYC, which is why my bike is parked outside. On the other hand, I
think my bike is bigger so perhaps this will be allowed.

 

Well don't have to read anything about it.
Since we have been telling the GM, Ford, Chrysler,
New Pork and Popular Mechanics idiots for over 80 YEARS now,
that ANYTHING, from a unicyle to a US Post Office double wide, that
gets
ANY rating of (X) MPG. for X ranging from
minus infinity to plus infinity is NOT a
HIGHWAY or ROAD vehicle.
It's a SEARS Vehicle, MORONS.

 

Well don't have to read anything about it.
Since we have been telling the GM, Ford, Chrysler,
New Pork and Popular Mechanics idiots for over 80 YEARS now,
that ANYTHING, from a unicyle to a US Post Office double wide, that
gets
ANY rating of (X) MPG. for X ranging from
minus infinity to plus infinity is NOT a
HIGHWAY or ROAD vehicle.
It's a SEARS Vehicle, MORONS.

 

Consumer Reports had a short article about the "Smart for Two" car in their
Dec '06 issue (not this same exact model).
They said it was the worst car they have ever tested.

Robert A. Cunningham

 

Consumer Reports had a short article about the "Smart for Two" car in their
Dec '06 issue (not this same exact model).
They said it was the worst car they have ever tested.

Robert A. Cunningham

 

In what respect.

It's the very best for parking.

Graham

 

In what respect.

It's the very best for parking.

Graham

 

In what respect? Well, for starters, how about 0 to 60 MPH speed: 23
seconds! How would you like to get on a freeway onramp with those numbers?.
Consumer Reports paid $22,000 for the Smart for Two in Montreal. They
averaged 43 MPG. (A Prius goes for $24,000 and averages about 44 MPG). The
ride is harsh and fidgety... handling is clumsy... many controls are small
and confusing... inside, engine clamor fights with wind noise...

CR's take: "Unless the new design is far better, buying a Smart could be
unwise."

Oh, one correction, I originally wrote that CR had said "it was the worst
car they have ever tested." I was wrong, the actual quote was "the Canadian
Smart is one of the worst cars we've tested." I apologize for the error,
but it does not change my opinion of the car.

Robert A. Cunningham

 

In what respect? Well, for starters, how about 0 to 60 MPH speed: 23
seconds! How would you like to get on a freeway onramp with those numbers?.
Consumer Reports paid $22,000 for the Smart for Two in Montreal. They
averaged 43 MPG. (A Prius goes for $24,000 and averages about 44 MPG). The
ride is harsh and fidgety... handling is clumsy... many controls are small
and confusing... inside, engine clamor fights with wind noise...

CR's take: "Unless the new design is far better, buying a Smart could be
unwise."

Oh, one correction, I originally wrote that CR had said "it was the worst
car they have ever tested." I was wrong, the actual quote was "the Canadian
Smart is one of the worst cars we've tested." I apologize for the error,
but it does not change my opinion of the car.

Robert A. Cunningham

 

The reliability seems truly substandard. I have occasionally lurked in SMART
forums and seen threads about seized alternators (lots and lots of them),
engine troubles, turbo troubles, doors jamming when hot (actually a common
problem with them apparently), transmission problems.... For soft-top SMART
models the motors in the Cabrio roof are notoriously troublesome and repair
is shockingly expensive. 50K miles or 80K km is considered old in many
circles, the way 250K miles is considered for Toyotas and Hondas. Whether
that is justified or just the owners' expectations isn't clear.

Mike

 

The reliability seems truly substandard. I have occasionally lurked in SMART
forums and seen threads about seized alternators (lots and lots of them),
engine troubles, turbo troubles, doors jamming when hot (actually a common
problem with them apparently), transmission problems.... For soft-top SMART
models the motors in the Cabrio roof are notoriously troublesome and repair
is shockingly expensive. 50K miles or 80K km is considered old in many
circles, the way 250K miles is considered for Toyotas and Hondas. Whether
that is justified or just the owners' expectations isn't clear.

Mike

 

Considering it's a Mercedes product that's very disappointing.

Mercedes do actually make a small car under their own brand but don't sell that
in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_A-Class

Graham