AutoblogGreen

I received my email yesterday also. I am going to give the car one last drive before deciding. The transmission is a big issue for me, honestly I don't know if I can live with the poor shift quality every day.

Reply

I first drove a Smart in 1998. My first impression was it was so small and relatively fast but handling was poor. (Under steer) I later discovered that the original smart was way better then the final car brought to market. It had in wheel motors and a small generator. But Mercedes Benz turned it into a "funmobil". 1st generation Smarts with the Mercedes engines had many reliability problems with turbo's and gearboxes. Some engines died after not more then 60k miles! The second generation Smart is better constructed and uses Mitsubishi engines. The drive is also allot better.

Till this date they never made any profit on Smart and they cancelled the fourfour and the roadster model. The fourmore never even came to market. Smart GmbH lost nearly 4 billion euros from 2003 to 2006. The American market is only to save the Smart for2 because when it fails then it's probably bye bye smart.

And for such a small car it does not even have good millage because of it's shape. The designer of the Smart Jason Hill now designed the Aptera. That's a giant leap forward in aerodynamics!

In this video you can see the original smart. Way better then the fun mobile you can buy now!

Look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ASwJJaE2bU (from 00,35sec)

Reply

Yeah - drive before you buy. The test drive offered a few months ago in SF amounted to nothing more than a drive around the block. I wasn't impressed with the shift quality, but I'm open to trying again in 30 days - just received my notice. Does it really get only 33mgg around town?

Reply

33mpg seems atrocious, but the real power of the Smart is the small footprint. If you can really park it head-in in a normal spot like I've heard, well - that is something every urban designer would love to build into his or her plans.

Reply

I already drove one around town. A friend managed to borrow one from the (future) SMART dealer and he let me drive it.

It drives okay, only rarely (very tight turns) do you notice that the car ends 18 inches behind your back.

It parks nice. It goes okay. The interior feels very cheap (esp. the stereo), but it works.

It's weird having the car wind out all the time, although it's not horrible.

What is horrible is the shifting. It's stunningly bad. This car, which doesn't lean too much in turns, lurches forward on each shift as the engine cuts out for almost a full second while the transmission changes gears. It's hard to believe they would let prospective customers drive a car with a transmission this bad.

You'll never be able to park it head-in in San Francisco, because it'll stick out a foot. In many places cars have to park with two wheels up on the curb, this car would stick out even more there. You could park it head in in other cities, but in those, do you need to?

All in all, it felt safe, and on the highway it would be okay, since it doesn't shift. But I can't get over the transmission.

Also, it really should do a little better on mpg with a 1.0L engine and all.

Reply

There is nothing atrocious about 33mpg.

You have to compare the car to other similar vehicles.

The Honda Fit weighs ~2400 pounds and gets 28 city/34 highway mpg.

The Smart weighs ~1800 pounds, but fuel economy isn't clear. At the Smart Roadshow I attended I believe they said 40mpg highway and something else city. The 33mpg city sated above would probably be in that ballpark.

Anyway, assuming 31 mpg average for the Fit and 36mpg average for the Smart that'd be a 5 mpg increase for a car weighing 700 less pounds.

And that, believe it or not, is normal.

Compare a Honda Fit to a 2008 Honda Accord.

Fit: 28/34 mpg and ~2500 pounds

Accord: 22/31 mpg and ~3300 pounds

So, the Fit averages 31mpg and the Accord averages around 26mpg. The Fit weighing about 800 pounds less, averages 5 more mpg.

The difference in mpg and the difference and weight, between the Fit/Smart and the Fit/Accord, are approximately the same.

The Smart doesn't get bad mpg. It's mpg is appropriate for its weight.

Reply

I'm not familiar with mpg figures but I do know that the Smart has the same fuel consumption and emissions as the larger Citroen C1/Toyota Aygo and Fiat 500, which all seat four people, have much more horse power and are far more apt to the highway. They also have much better Euroncap (safety) figures, and this is a potent argument against Smarts in Europe (where a lot of the larger US vehicles don't circulate). When you add to this the Smart price tag, there has been a 30% drop in Smart sales in Europe (www.acea.be) since 2005.

I guess the cars I've mentioned aren't for sale in the US, but surely there are things like the Yaris?. Rather than saying that the Smart is a high mpg car, I'd rather say that it is a Ligier (a kind of very small vehicle you can drive in Europe without a license) with average mpg and very hefty price tag for what it is.
http://www.ligier-automobiles.com/site/uk/index.htm

Reply

33MPG is horrid for a car that size. My 96' Metro 5 spd is a little larger and gets 44MPG city.

Reply

Diesel....I just want the diesel to be brought here. A little diesel SMART would compliment my big SUV well. Um, my big SUV is a Scion xB.....

Reply

Who needs a smartcar? Been driving my vw tdi for 6 years on biodiesel (low polluting fuel) and getting about 49.6 mpg.

Reply