Dept of the Obvious: Sub-compacts fare poorly against mid-size sedans

[MillCreek]

I was kind of bummed to see the results for the Honda Fit.  I have been admiring that car as a very space-efficient vehicle.

[MicroBalrog]

"Fifty-five was adopted to save fuel, but it turned out to be one of the most dramatic safety successes in motor vehicle history," Lund concludes.

People still believe that?

[Gewehr98]

The engine is carbeurated!  For all that money you'd expect to get the latest engine technology.

Huh?

The Smart ForTwo I drove was a 1.0L, 3-cylinder with multi-point fuel injection.

I know, I looked in the rear engine compartment.

Do you know about a Daimler-Benz Smart model w/carburetor that the rest of the world doesn't?

[French G.]

The engine, for me, can be a paperweight. I'd love to have the dough to buy a Smart and a Hayabusa. Then I would perform an unholy wedding. Fuel economy would be gone I believe and I might need a rollcage.

[never_retreat]

Well I feel good every day know I can drive over or crush almost every other vehicle on the road.
7600 LBS of Detroit power. Well it was actual built in Kentucky.

[Physics]

Well I feel good every day know I can drive over or crush almost every other vehicle on the road.
7600 LBS of Detroit power. Well it was actual built in Kentucky.

I drive a geo metro (when I drive), and my pregnant wife drives it every day.     It definitely gets great mileage though, for a four-banger.

[jackdanson]

As others have said, I don't really see the advantage of a "smart car" over a civic or corolla... less safe, only a minimal gas improvement.. MUCH less storage/sitting space.

[HankB]

The engine, for me, can be a paperweight. I'd love to have the dough to buy a Smart and a Hayabusa. Then I would perform an unholy wedding. Fuel economy would be gone I believe and I might need a rollcage.

From Wikipedia:

Smart cars have been modified by Brabus of Germany, resulting in Brabus production models. Other companies modify the Smart to use motorcycle engines, such as the Suzuki Hayabusa 1340 cc inline four-cylinder. These cars are known as Smartuki. The most powerful models can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph (0 to 100 km/h) in less than 3.5 seconds

Seems like it would be a bit . . . unstable.

The SmartForTwo DumbForAll is cheap, but that seems to be its only virtue; you'd think an itty bitty thing like that would get 80+ MPG, but it's only rated at 36 combined; an entry level Toyota Corolla gets 30, and though small, it's an actual car. Drive an average 12,000 miles annually, and there's less than 67 gallons total difference in fuel use; not much for what you give up.

[Nick1911]

Agreed.  Heck, an Escape gets 28 highway.  With that, you can haul four people and luggage, tow a trailer, go through significant snow, put it off the road if need be, etc.

36 mpg isn't anything to write home about.  A car that size could be built that would get very good millage (60-70?), but it would never pass emission tests.  (Run the motor hotter, more NOx)

[Gewehr98]

Not as unstable as one would think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4HdsDZX6c

[coppertales]

That is why they call it DEFENSIVE DRIVING.  Car companies are advertising the fact that their car is so safe in a crash, that you will not get hurt.  So, people drive reckless because they think they won't get hurt.  40,000 people a year think that way.  Yep, dead right on this.  I ride a motorcycle as my main transportation.  I checked out a Smart car at an auto show and I liked them.  The thought of dying in my car is not one of the controlling factors of why I bought it in the first place.  A Smart car would make a great towed car with my motor home.  chris3

[Gewehr98]

Coppertales, I hear you. Like I said before, it's ok if I ride my Harley, but not if I drive a Daimler Smart Car. 

Go figure.  Neither are going to do very well against a GMC Suburb, Ford Excursion, or H2/H3 (Tahoes w/codpieces). 

Riding the former?  No big deal. 

But you'll get all sorts of cutesy, nasty nicknames generated on a piddly-assed internet forum if you consider the latter, and you'll also get silly disinformation like having a carburetor instead of fuel injection.

Stuff like this, which makes me really wonder:

Well I feel good every day know I can drive over or crush almost every other vehicle on the road.
7600 LBS of Detroit power.

This place truly amazes me at times.    

[MicroBalrog]

40,000 people a year think that way

Yeah, because whenever someone gets killed in a driving accident, it's their own fault.

ike I said before, it's ok if I ride my Harley, but not if I drive a Daimler Smart Car.

That's exactly correct.

Because your Harley doesn't pretend to be a car.  Everybody knows (I think) that motorcycles are not meant for you to ride with your entire family. There's a certain modicum of risk-taking involved with motorcycles.

Smarts, minicars are supposed to be cars. As such, they obviously get compared to other cars.

[MillCreek]

Driving cars, motorcycles and bicycles, I figure that any sort of substantial impact is going to leave a mark.  Probably a much bigger mark if I am on the Suzuki, Aprilia or one of the five bicycles. I have never been involved in a car or motorcycle crash but one of the bicycle crashes did result in a broken hip.

It does remain interesting to me that so many of the mini-cars get much poorer mileage than you would expect from their size.

[mtnbkr]

It does remain interesting to me that so many of the mini-cars get much poorer mileage than you would expect from their size.

Yup.  My 1993 Toyota Paseo, with 1.5L engine and 5spd manual, would get 30 in town and 40 on the highway (reduced a couple mpg if the AC was on).  It had enough room for two adults and two kids with a decent trunk.  It was peppy enough to be safe on the highway and would cruise at 70-80mph in the mountains.

My parents have a 2007 Corolla with automatic transmission.  It gets upwards of 40mpg on the highway with the AC on and has enough room for 4 adults and luggage.

Heck, my 03 Camry gets 25-27mph in town and 30-32mpg highway with a 2.4L 4cyl and 5spd manual.  That's not bad for a midsized "family" car.

Other than parking ease, the smartcars don't make sense.

Chris

[Marnoot]

Coppertales, I hear you. Like I said before, it's ok if I ride my Harley, but not if I drive a Daimler Smart Car.

I agree with you, so long as purchasers are aware of the level of safety provided by the Smart. I ride a motorcycle in good weather, and I'm aware of the increased risk and travel more defensively as a result. One certainly shouldn't be criticized for driving a Smart for safety reasons if one is OK with motorcycles. My main issue with the Smart has already been mentioned. It gets worse fuel economy than cheaper and larger vehicles. Kind of defeats the purpose IMO.

[HankB]

Not as unstable as one would think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4HdsDZX6c

Looks like the little things had a hard time going in a straight line for most of the video . . . lots of skidding and sliding.

Sort of reminded me of the stunts I see kids doing on skateboards . . .

 

[doczinn]

Bet they're easy to park....

[Firethorn]

I remember reading somewhere that the 'smart car' doesn't get as good gas mileage as it could because it's engine is actually undersized in order to get it into a specific tax category.  If it was .1 liter larger, it'd cost over a thousand more due to said tax.  Oops...

Back on topic, I'd point out that sub-compact vs mid-size sedan is only one of many metrics.

For example - I'd like to see results from collisions with immobile objects such as a large tree or concrete wall, and mid-size vs mid-size.

We might find out that the smaller cars, assuming there are enough of them on the road, are on average safer.

[never_retreat]

Coppertales, I hear you. Like I said before, it's ok if I ride my Harley, but not if I drive a Daimler Smart Car. 

Go figure.  Neither are going to do very well against a GMC Suburb, Ford Excursion, or H2/H3 (Tahoes w/codpieces). 

Riding the former?  No big deal. 

But you'll get all sorts of cutesy, nasty nicknames generated on a piddly-assed internet forum if you consider the latter, and you'll also get silly disinformation like having a carburetor instead of fuel injection.

Stuff like this, which makes me really wonder:

This place truly amazes me at times.    

Oh common I guess nobody's sarcasm is working. I also have a jeep and a bike. But I really fear any vehicle I can fit in the back of mine.
And you other guys are right their marginal fuel economy against other small cars is a joke. 

[Marvin Dao]

I remember reading somewhere that the 'smart car' doesn't get as good gas mileage as it could because it's engine is actually undersized in order to get it into a specific tax category.  If it was .1 liter larger, it'd cost over a thousand more due to said tax.  Oops...

Not in the US. The Smart Fortwo is a standard car here and doesn't qualify for any tax breaks. There was an issue with that in Japan though where the current generation Fortwo's engine size (999cc) exceeded the Japanese Kei class limits (660cc) and made it much more expensive to own. Smart rectified it there by releasing the Smart K which uses a smaller engine. The engine is likely undersized in the US market for packaging reasons.

In the US, the Smart gets poorer than expected fuel mileage for a variety of reasons. Mainly, the drag coefficient sucks, it's somewhat underpowered, and the transmission is geared towards snappier acceleration in town rather than highway fuel mileage.

Back on topic, I'd point out that sub-compact vs mid-size sedan is only one of many metrics.

For example - I'd like to see results from collisions with immobile objects such as a large tree or concrete wall, and mid-size vs mid-size.

We might find out that the smaller cars, assuming there are enough of them on the road, are on average safer.

They already have those tests, and a little legwork would get you the frontal impact, offset frontal impact, and side impact crashworthiness ratings for most cars. In general, sub-compacts perform well, but still perform worse than their same make compact/midsized/large brethren. Safety cell intrusion is usually close in immobile object collisions, but the lack of mass and crumple space subjects the occupants in sub-compact cars to higher g-loadings. Laws of physics, etc.

[red headed stranger]

Bet they're easy to park....

When I lived in Seoul, there were smart car drivers who would park perpendicular to the curb instead of parallel. They didn't really jut out into traffic very much at all. 

[Firethorn]

Not in the US. The Smart Fortwo is a standard car here and doesn't qualify for any tax breaks.

Oops, I must of edited out the mention of 'in Europe'.

They already have those tests, and a little legwork would get you the frontal impact, offset frontal impact, and side impact crashworthiness ratings for most cars. In general, sub-compacts perform well, but still perform worse than their same make compact/midsized/large brethren. Safety cell intrusion is usually close in immobile object collisions, but the lack of mass and crumple space subjects the occupants in sub-compact cars to higher g-loadings. Laws of physics, etc.

Good point.  Of course, you also have the fact that volume increases by the cube, while surface area only increases by the square.  In other words, a larger vehicle tends to be more efficient capacity wise; creating 50% more internal capacity(and associated additional crumple room) won't scale up the weight of the vehicle 50%, and the reduction in gas mileage would be minimal...

[Scout26]

Remember Yugos.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2eCFoafXk

[mtnbkr]

Remember Yugos.....

Yes.  A friend of mine in HS (this was 1990ish) got one when he turned 16.  His dad, who had means, didn't think a new driver needed an expensive car and bought him the brand new Yugo for about $3k (this was when a damn good used car was $1k-$3k).  It was a pretty good little car.  It was fun to drive, was pretty reliable, and got good gas mileage.

Chris