AutoblogGreen

In a Smart vs. Smart collision may be acceptable, basically what these barrier tests simulate. But in a crash with anything with a taller bumper and more mass (ie. the majority of vehicles on the road in North America), the lack of crumple zones is cause for concern.

Simple physics dictates that if the car can't absorb energy, the passenger will. So no matter how strong the safety cage is, high g-forces on the occupants are just as much of a concern as how good the design resists deformation of the structure.

Reply

@SkiD666

In other words the roads will be safer if everyone drives a small car. Doesnt that mean your doing the world a service by being less dangerous to people? Thats one way to look at it.

I dont know what the safety fuss is all about, if you crash you are not going to be that safe anyways unless you drive a monster truck.

I say drive more carefuly and at less high speeds and it will more then compensate for the size difference. Dont get a small car if you plan on texting while you drive :P

Reply

I guess the definition of the term "aces" has changed since I was young.

"The Smart scored the maximum good rating on both the front and side tests and an acceptable on the rear impact test."

Reply

Stolen from autoblog:

Here are the NHTSA ratings:

2008 Smart:

Front collision - Driver: 4 stars
Front collision - Passenger: 3 stars
Side collision - Driver: 5 stars
Side collision - Passenger: not tested
Rollover - 3 stars

2008 Cobalt Coupe (2 door):

Front collision - Driver: 4 stars
Front collision - Passenger: 5 stars
Side collision - Driver: 4 stars
Side collision - Passenger: 4 stars
Rollover - 4 stars

2008 Cobalt Sedan (4 door):

Front collision - Driver: 4 stars
Front collision - Passenger: 5 stars
Side collision - Driver: 3 stars
Side collision - Passenger: 5 stars
Rollover - 4 stars

That's not "acing" anything. It didn't do as badly as some would have expected, but I would suggest those people were just overly negative.

Reply

This car is HALF the size of a freaking Mini..WTF are some of you crying and bitching about? It performs better than cars 3 times its size....let's see GM and Ford make a product that comes even close to this without having to make a living room on four wheels.

Some of you GM and Ford ambulance chasers need to give it a rest....

Reply

Interesting... The New York Times has a very different perspective on the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety test:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/another-smart-crash-test-same-result/

Reply

Ahh...Very impressive. :)

Mercedes delivered.

Reply

Accolades to SMART!!!

Reply

armmat, once again you put your ignorance on display. Ford, GM and Chrysler cars have 4 and 5 start ratings too. Get your facts straight.

Reply

SkiD666 there is more to consider in an auto collision than bouncing billiard balls, if you read farther in the physics book, you will see that things can deform and have different qualities than incompressible balls bouncing around. Your house has much higher mass than a pebble, but a pebble thrown at your window by the right neighborhood hoodlum will go right through.

Small cars are built stiffer and deform less than larger cars. This makes them behave differently in a crash than two large cars colliding. The reality is that a well designed stiff small car is likely to penetrate deeply into the larger car as the larger car deforms absorbing the collision leaving the people in the larger car more injured and the people in the small car safer. Don't believe me, check out a real world test:

Renault Modus v Volvo 940 Crash Test
http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?lnk=901&id=176

You really do not need to worry as much as you think about other cars, but you do still have the issue of hitting a non movable barrier in the small rigid car forcing you to decelerate too rapidly, but the IIHS test shows that for moderate speeds, the Smart is OK at this.

Reply