Post by: mtnbkr on April 30, 2008, 06:59:19 AM
Why does anyone buy these things? Gas mileage is no better than a Corolla or Civic. They're much smaller. Less power, slower, etc. Price isn't even that attractive (can get a base model Corolla/Civic for not much more, or go used).
What's the draw other than them being trendy?
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on April 30, 2008, 07:05:55 AM
What's the draw
Chris
Simplify, and you already said it.
They also had an ad campaign to the lefties that was pretty close to the Simpsons' Monorail guy.
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 07:07:06 AM
You can get a base Toyota Yaris that gets 29/35 for nearly $5,000 LESS than the "Smart" car.
A quote from Grandma's Boy comes to mind...
"But the Smart Car isn't that smart, so you're dumb, Bobby..."
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 30, 2008, 07:29:25 AM
Quote
You can get a base Toyota Yaris that gets 29/35 for nearly $5,000 LESS than the "Smart" car.
You sure about that mileage? I've got a 'yota Echo, the Yaris' predecessor, and it regularly gets 40 on the highway and in the 30's around town. AFAIK, it's the same car, isn't it?
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 07:31:48 AM
I've always found those quotes to be conservative.
Post by: Jamisjockey on April 30, 2008, 07:40:19 AM
What was the base price of a smartcar?
Paddy:
29/35 is listed on the Toyota website.
That's the mileage quote from Toyota's website.
I've always found those quotes to be conservative.
I've always found those quotes to be conservative.
Ford's MPG estimates are spot on for my F150.
Post by: charby on April 30, 2008, 07:46:57 AM
Yuppie/GenXer posturing bullshit braindeadedness.
You can get a base Toyota Yaris that gets 29/35 for nearly $5,000 LESS than the "Smart" car.
A quote from Grandma's Boy comes to mind...
"But the Smart Car isn't that smart, so you're dumb, Bobby..."
You can get a base Toyota Yaris that gets 29/35 for nearly $5,000 LESS than the "Smart" car.
A quote from Grandma's Boy comes to mind...
"But the Smart Car isn't that smart, so you're dumb, Bobby..."
My wife's Pontiac Vibe does a litte better than that. The Vibe is a whole lot bigger than a Smart Car.
Bring back the Geo Metro, mine was an auto and got 40/45 consistantly.
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 07:49:21 AM
The absolute base is about the same as the Yaris, just shy of $12,000.
A/C is a $600 extra cost (standard on Yaris base), the engine is SIGNIFICANTLY less powerful, it won't seat as many people, lots of other detriments, as well.
Post by: Scout26 on April 30, 2008, 07:51:49 AM
My 7 year old Turbo-charged Saab 9-3 with a five speed gets 30/33mpg and I can get above 35mpg on the Highway if I keep it at 65mph. It comfortably seats 4 (and a dog) with plenty of room to haul all the guns, ammo and clay birds for a full day of fun out at the range for the whole family.
(Mileage does decrease, somewhat, when hauling two good sized deer out the woods, back to camp, and then to the processors.)
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 07:54:54 AM
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 07:57:17 AM
I've driven a 1.8 standard Civic (few years ago) and was EXTREMELY impressed with how peppy and responsive it was.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 30, 2008, 08:00:02 AM
This will score no women other than the sort that wear Che shirts, are unshaven and reek of patchouli.
Man. If cars had soundtracks, that one would have a single kazoo.
Post by: Firethorn on April 30, 2008, 08:08:05 AM
Oh, did anybody else catch that you need to feed this thing premium? 91 octane minimum. I beleive that the civic, yaris and such can all take regular.
On the mileage, I wonder why the huge difference between 07 and 08 fuel specs? It makes some sense under 07 specs, but not the 08 ones. What changed? All I get is that the EPA changed the rating system to be more accurate, for example, actually assuming that you'll use accessories like the radio and AC.
It's an awfull lot to sacrifice for something like 5-8 mpg over it's competitors.
Post by: mtnbkr on April 30, 2008, 08:14:17 AM
From 1996-2003, I drove a 1993 Toyota Paseo 5spd. I regularly got 30mpg in town and 40+ on the highway. It was pretty peppy, though no race car. My parents' 2007 Corolla gets low to mid 30s around town and low to mid 40s on the highway with AC and an automatic transmission. It costs more than the Smartcar Cabrio (just barely), but is a more versatile car.
The Smartcar would make sense to me if it cost less than $10k (with AC) or got 40/50 mileage.
About the only benefit I can see is the size will make it easier to drive in crowded cities, but all the ones I've seen have been out in the 'burbs (at least one had DC plates though).
Chris
Post by: Scout26 on April 30, 2008, 08:15:23 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on April 30, 2008, 08:17:59 AM
The only reason I can think of getting one would be if I was having to parallel park a lot at work. Maybe if they put in some microcar parking spaces nice and close.
I parallel parked my SUV with the hitch mounted bike rack on the back (with bike) in a space that left about a foot of clearance on each end. Not only did I get it in, it required almost no back and forth to get it there. I got it in as if I had 4-wheel steering. Yeah, I'm proud of that parking job.
Chris
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 30, 2008, 08:23:58 AM
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 08:51:45 AM
A 1977 Chevrolet Suburban, or a 1980 Dodge Stretch Van.
If you can learn to parallel park one of those, you can parallel park anything.
I was also going to suggest a Mini Cooper as an alternative, but they base nearly 7,000 more than the Smart.
The first microcar I ever saw was in France in 1980. We picked it up and moved it so that our tour coach could make a corner in Chartres. They pick up REAL easy.
Post by: charby on April 30, 2008, 09:11:29 AM
I'm on Pontiac's website and I'm having a really tough time finding EPA ratings. I hate it when the website makes it impossible to find that kind of information.
I gave you what our real world experiences are.
Post by: roo_ster on April 30, 2008, 09:13:30 AM
Quote
You can get a base Toyota Yaris that gets 29/35 for nearly $5,000 LESS than the "Smart" car.
You sure about that mileage? I've got a 'yota Echo, the Yaris' predecessor, and it regularly gets 40 on the highway and in the 30's around town. AFAIK, it's the same car, isn't it?
The gooberment recently changed the way it tests for fuel economy. I suspect the new "35MPG Yaris" gets as good or better mileage than the old "40MPG Echo."
Anyways, those numbers are just relative indicators.
FWIW, I wish they would have stayed with the old method, as it is now impossible to do MPG comparisons across a particular year using gov't data.
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 09:18:49 AM
I'm on Pontiac's website and I'm having a really tough time finding EPA ratings. I hate it when the website makes it impossible to find that kind of information.
I gave you what our real world experiences are.
Yeah, but that doesn't allow adequate comparison across car lines when I don't have someone else chiming in with their mileage on, say, the Blumpkin XT
Post by: roo_ster on April 30, 2008, 09:20:17 AM
The only reason I can think of getting one would be if I was having to parallel park a lot at work. Maybe if they put in some microcar parking spaces nice and close.
Oh, did anybody else catch that you need to feed this thing premium? 91 octane minimum. I beleive that the civic, yaris and such can all take regular.
On the mileage, I wonder why the huge difference between 07 and 08 fuel specs? It makes some sense under 07 specs, but not the 08 ones. What changed? All I get is that the EPA changed the rating system to be more accurate, for example, actually assuming that you'll use accessories like the radio and AC.
It's an awfull lot to sacrifice for something like 5-8 mpg over it's competitors.
Oh, did anybody else catch that you need to feed this thing premium? 91 octane minimum. I beleive that the civic, yaris and such can all take regular.
On the mileage, I wonder why the huge difference between 07 and 08 fuel specs? It makes some sense under 07 specs, but not the 08 ones. What changed? All I get is that the EPA changed the rating system to be more accurate, for example, actually assuming that you'll use accessories like the radio and AC.
It's an awfull lot to sacrifice for something like 5-8 mpg over it's competitors.
You can fill it up with regular (87) or mid (89) and it will run fine. You'll lose a few HP and a little MPG.
Which makes me wonder if they specified premium (91) in order to bump up claimed MPG? If you filled up a base civic 5sp and a base Smart 5sp with regualr gas (87), I wonder if the Smart has ANY advantage, MPG-wise?
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 09:22:59 AM
When Subaru brought out their first gen 6-cyl. Outback it required high test. Trying to drive it with 87 octane led to significant performance impacts, not just the loss of a few whorse power...
Post by: charby on April 30, 2008, 09:23:39 AM
I'm on Pontiac's website and I'm having a really tough time finding EPA ratings. I hate it when the website makes it impossible to find that kind of information.
I gave you what our real world experiences are.
Yeah, but that doesn't allow adequate comparison across car lines when I don't have someone else chiming in with their mileage on, say, the Blumpkin XT
I use edmunds reviews on vehicles to check out what people have been getting. One of the reasons we settled with the Vibe and that my brother is a manager at new car lot that is part of a large chain. Joys of family discounts.
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 09:24:25 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on April 30, 2008, 09:37:11 AM
This will score no women other than the sort that wear Che shirts, are unshaven and reek of patchouli.
Man. If cars had soundtracks, that one would have a single kazoo.
Hey, that's about the size of a coffin!
Post by: Manedwolf on April 30, 2008, 09:40:53 AM
Oh, did anybody else catch that you need to feed this thing premium? 91 octane minimum. I beleive that the civic, yaris and such can all take regular.
All Honda engines are designed for 87 octane.
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 30, 2008, 09:46:49 AM
A local college kid bought our old 32" Sony TV via Craigslist, and the big monstrosity fit quite nicely in his Vibe, with room to spare.
It kinda reminded me of my old Ford Fiesta (German Ford, not the Korean Festiva) and the amount of interior space that little car delivered.
I'd like to find another early Fiesta, they did well in SCCA, too.
Regarding octane, if they bump compression to increase efficiency and horsepower from small-displacement mills, you'll see more cars requiring the higher-octane fuel. Everything old is new again.
Post by: Marvin Dao on April 30, 2008, 10:14:06 AM
Oh, did anybody else catch that you need to feed this thing premium? 91 octane minimum. I beleive that the civic, yaris and such can all take regular.
All Honda engines are designed for 87 octane.
There are exceptions. The K20A3 in the current Civic Si is a 91 octane only engine. Same for the F20C1/F22C1 in the S2000. Both can run on 87 octane as a stop gap, but there are severe performance penalties. The Acura line up also features engines that require 91 octane.
Post by: Iain on April 30, 2008, 10:28:35 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 30, 2008, 10:45:31 AM
This will score no women other than the sort that wear Che shirts, are unshaven and reek of patchouli.
Man. If cars had soundtracks, that one would have a single kazoo.
Hey, that's about the size of a coffin!
I saw a Smartcar for the first time last week. It was tooling down the interstate at 70mph between two semis. "Deathtrap" was my first thought. My second thought was "idjit".
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 30, 2008, 10:50:21 AM
Quote
I saw a Smartcar for the first time last week. It was tooling down the interstate at 70mph between two semis. "Deathtrap" was my first thought. My second thought was "idjit".
Yeah, because Lord knows nobody ever dies in 12mpg bigazz SUV rollovers.
Post by: mtnbkr on April 30, 2008, 10:51:00 AM
Chris
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 30, 2008, 11:56:11 AM
Quote
I saw a Smartcar for the first time last week. It was tooling down the interstate at 70mph between two semis. "Deathtrap" was my first thought. My second thought was "idjit".
Yeah, because Lord knows nobody ever dies in 12mpg bigazz SUV rollovers.
Post by: Bogie on April 30, 2008, 11:57:51 AM
Pretty much ground guy below his shoulders... Rather disgusting.
I'd get one, however, for advertising value (I'd wrap it with graphics), or for exclusive city use.
Post by: charby on April 30, 2008, 12:35:51 PM
Quote
I saw a Smartcar for the first time last week. It was tooling down the interstate at 70mph between two semis. "Deathtrap" was my first thought. My second thought was "idjit".
Yeah, because Lord knows nobody ever dies in 12mpg bigazz SUV rollovers.
...well unless some cheap alternative hydrocarbon is produced I have a feeling we all will be driving tiny little vehicles.
Post by: Boomhauer on April 30, 2008, 12:47:18 PM
No way would I call it smart. No way would I drive one, either. Pretty fugly.
Post by: Tallpine on April 30, 2008, 01:00:13 PM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on April 30, 2008, 01:10:31 PM
heres the 70mph smart crash into a wall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s
Post by: bedlamite on April 30, 2008, 01:41:26 PM
Post by: Boomhauer on April 30, 2008, 02:15:12 PM
Quote
Does that thing have an engine, or pedals
It comes standard with a hyperactive hamster in a wheel.
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 02:38:19 PM
Focus on the dummy driver's head and the dashboard.
I'd say it's a complete failure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo&feature=related
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 30, 2008, 02:45:16 PM
Post by: Declaration Day on April 30, 2008, 02:57:24 PM
Take a look at this crash test result...
Focus on the dummy driver's head and the dashboard.
I'd say it's a complete failure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo&feature=related
Focus on the dummy driver's head and the dashboard.
I'd say it's a complete failure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo&feature=related
Ummm, that's a Chinese Brilliance BS6.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on April 30, 2008, 03:12:39 PM
Post by: lupinus on April 30, 2008, 04:10:06 PM
I've had cars with engines bigger then the smart car....
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2008, 04:33:47 PM
That's why I posted it... juxtaposition.
Post by: charby on April 30, 2008, 04:55:04 PM
Yes, I know it's a Chinese car.
That's why I posted it... juxtaposition.
That's why I posted it... juxtaposition.
You and your five dollar words, simply prodigious.
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 30, 2008, 06:35:06 PM
Post by: Bogie on April 30, 2008, 06:50:40 PM
Post by: crt360 on April 30, 2008, 08:56:06 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 01, 2008, 02:12:31 AM
Crash test blah-blah-blah. That little 4-wheel cage is still safer than my motorcycle, and lots of us risk that mode of transportation every day...
Not I.
Can you get a mower attachment for it?
Thread's over.
Post by: taurusowner on May 01, 2008, 03:07:59 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 01, 2008, 03:11:22 AM
Seems like the only thing it's good for is driving downrange to change out the 500m targets.
You can do that with a mountain bike for less money and very little "environmental impact".
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 01, 2008, 04:32:45 AM
Quote
Does that thing have an engine, or pedals
It comes standard with a hyperactive hamster in a wheel.
One word: Flintstones
Post by: K Frame on May 01, 2008, 05:13:36 AM
Seems like the only thing it's good for is driving downrange to change out the 500m targets.
You can do that with a mountain bike for less money and very little "environmental impact".
Except that doing so will endanger the habitat of the Western Reticulated Kumkwat Flea.
Thanks for getting another range area shut down, you prat.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 04, 2008, 07:34:11 PM
More research. It seems the Smart has no crumple zone, but a design meant to trigger another vehicle's crumple zone. Thing is, if the other vehicle has no crumple zone, you're screwed, and mass wins.
In certain markets like California...
...there are a LOT of cars on the road with no crumple zone.
Post by: Regolith on May 04, 2008, 08:53:17 PM
I'll stick with my Explorer.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 04, 2008, 09:07:38 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 05, 2008, 02:49:50 AM
Of course, mass almost always wins but, it wouldn't matter much whatever you were driving if you have a head on with a Freightliner.
Post by: mfree on May 05, 2008, 07:23:36 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on May 05, 2008, 07:39:56 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL048250820080404
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on May 05, 2008, 07:43:30 AM
If anyone watched those crash test videos, the cabin of the smart car showed amazing structural integrity in the tests, which would protect the occupants from intrusion into the passenger compartment. The downside is, they would be absorbing all the g-forces which would otherwise be decreased by crumple zones.
Which, unless you're wearing a six-point harness and a neckbrace like a race driver, can kill you. I don't think a regular seatbelt would be enough?
Post by: charby on May 05, 2008, 07:51:42 AM
If anyone watched those crash test videos, the cabin of the smart car showed amazing structural integrity in the tests, which would protect the occupants from intrusion into the passenger compartment. The downside is, they would be absorbing all the g-forces which would otherwise be decreased by crumple zones.
Which, unless you're wearing a six-point harness and a neckbrace like a race driver, can kill you. I don't think a regular seatbelt would be enough?
I aways find it amazing when folks who own and ride motorcycles (or used to own/ride) complain about how unsafe small cars are in accidents. Not saying that folks on here all own motorcycles but I find it funny.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 05, 2008, 08:01:52 AM
I think people who ride a motorcycle in 80mph hostile bumper-to-bumper traffic accept that if they crash, they'll be killed by both impact and other cars running over them. That, or they should accept that.
Post by: mtnbkr on May 05, 2008, 08:08:20 AM
Chris
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 05, 2008, 08:26:22 AM
It's a matter of physics, pure and simple. In a collision, a cager is probably going to do better than a bike, and a Freightliner is going to do better than a Suburban, and so forth. You can engineer crumple zones 'til the cows come home, but Newton will prevail.
Post by: K Frame on May 05, 2008, 08:31:30 AM
He punched out of an F-16 that had injested a goose, so the motorcycle was probably old hat to him.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 05, 2008, 08:50:22 AM
You can engineer crumple zones 'til the cows come home, but Newton will prevail.
So, Newton sides with the gas-guzzling vehicles. That earth-hating tool!
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 05, 2008, 10:44:05 AM
If anyone watched those crash test videos, the cabin of the smart car showed amazing structural integrity in the tests, which would protect the occupants from intrusion into the passenger compartment. The downside is, they would be absorbing all the g-forces which would otherwise be decreased by crumple zones.
Which, unless you're wearing a six-point harness and a neckbrace like a race driver, can kill you. I don't think a regular seatbelt would be enough?
At 70 mph into a concrete barrier, I don't think it would matter what kind of harness you wear. Maybe if you had a HANS device.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 05, 2008, 11:01:23 AM
You can engineer crumple zones 'til the cows come home, but Newton will prevail.
So, Newton sides with the gas-guzzling vehicles. That earth-hating tool!
Newton may love them, but they won't survive Darwin.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 05, 2008, 11:21:43 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 05, 2008, 11:29:09 AM
And sometimes, nothing makes sense at all.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 05, 2008, 03:12:55 PM
That Burbank crash is extremely weird.
Post by: charby on May 05, 2008, 05:21:39 PM
I can't believe that guy drove that Vette into the garage with that pickup on top of his car!
That Burbank crash is extremely weird.
That Burbank crash is extremely weird.
VETTE? Did you see the prancing pony? That is a Ferrari!
Post by: Manedwolf on May 05, 2008, 05:32:54 PM
I can't believe that guy drove that Vette into the garage with that pickup on top of his car!
That Burbank crash is extremely weird.
That Burbank crash is extremely weird.
VETTE? Did you see the prancing pony? That is a Ferrari!
I suspect the insurance person probably spit coffee all over their screen when they got that picture.
Post by: roo_ster on May 05, 2008, 06:13:48 PM
And that, boys & girls, is how little Chevy SSRs are made:
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 05, 2008, 06:47:49 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 06, 2008, 03:59:24 AM
Quote
And that, boys & girls, is how little Chevy SSRs are made:
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 06, 2008, 08:01:13 AM
Physics 101 - bike vs. cage. Bike estimated to be going 155mph:
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2008, 12:04:49 PM
Post by: LAK on May 07, 2008, 12:05:06 AM
The only thing smart about the "Smartcar" is the manufacturers and dealers who sell them; overpriced to buy, very expensive to fix - with less and less user servicability.
-------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: seeker_two on May 07, 2008, 01:30:53 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 07, 2008, 02:23:05 AM
Post by: seeker_two on May 07, 2008, 07:52:03 AM
You mean the cachet?
Yeah.....what he said.....