Slashdot Mirror
Smart Car Coming To the US In Jan. 2008
Blahbooboo3 writes "After many delays and missed promises, the Smart Car is finally coming to the US in January 2008. Smart Car uses a specially designed crash cage to protect the driver and gets upwards of 40 miles per gallon. Crash tests are very positive. The car is deceptively large inside, as showcased by this great ad from the Smart USA site. The second-generation Fortwo will be offered first, starting around $14,000. Unfortunately the slick roadster isn't coming any time soon."
Firstly, you can change the bodywork easily for different designs. Secondly it's a Mercedes, Thirdly it can park in small spaces in cities which other cars can't.
These have already been in Canada for a year or so and judging by the number on the road, they've been selling well. I've spoken to a couple of owners and they love them. Apparently they cope well in the snow (not that we had much in Ottawa this past winter) so they should be perfectly viable in the northern States. Mind you there is something ludicrous-looking about them, especially when you see them next to the ubiquitous SUVs. People thought the same thing about the Morris Minor and the Mini Cooper 40+ years ago. Now, the Cooper is trendy!
The Smart gets more than 40mpg; the most efficient Toyotas (in the US) get up to 36 (manual Yaris according to fueleconomy.gov).
If you want a Toyota comparable to the Smart, you're looking at an Aygo, which is even smaller than a Yaris and not sold in the US.
By the way, about those Scions: although the first-gen xA and xB had the same 104hp, 1.5L engine as the Echo and Yaris, the new xB and xD will have larger ones and will probably get less mileage.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
(John Stewart voice) Gooo on...
about a woman who bought an RV, drove it on the highway, set the cruise control, went back to make breafast, and, of course, the RV crashed.Yeah, stupid people are funny.
The woman sued the RV maker for not explicitly stating in the manual that she needed to be behind the wheel when on cruise control and won a million bucks.Of course she did! The system is out of control, I tells ya.
Did you ever consider that your father might be telling you an urban myth?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Why would anyone buy any new car at all? They're all over priced and instantly loose a considerable chunk of their "value" the moment you drive them off of the lot.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
You can stick it in the back of your truck for when you need to get somewhere
inaccessible by normal means - like closer to the mall entrance than a
regular parking spot.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I can only assume that the extremely small size of the Smart leads to an attempt to overcompensate. Most Smarts are driven as fast as the can go, whenever possible (which isn't very fast, but far faster than safe for the size of car). They will cut you up at junctions, they will race you, they park in a manner that is often extremely selfish.
It seems that in Europe, only total dicks buy the Smart.
Have you looked at the videos illustrating how safe they are? Or how about the one in the UK where they ran the thing against a wall head on. These things are incredibly safe!
Mercedes has safe cars. I know, I have seen a Mercedes roll on the German autobahn (the guy was doing about 170-190). His Mercedes end up upside down. The guy walked out without being hurt. Ok he was shaken, and he looked like, "I survived that?"
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Just look at Fortwo, taller than it is wide, and figure out what happens when someone runs a red light.
We are all just people.
That might be the stupidest statement I've ever read at Slashdot, and I browse at -1.
Well, considering that, you'd think it'd be safer than other small cars in side impacts, because the door reinforcements are higher off the ground. Also, because it's so short, the side impact actually hits the A and B pillars, the front and back wheels (at the same time!), etc -- the stuff that's rather more solid than the doors.
In a side-impact crash, I would expect the Smart to be more likely to roll and get less smashed-in, meaning that the occupants would be at greater risk for whiplash but less risk for entrapment or getting crushed.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I used to think the same thing, but guess what? I'm driving a brand new Mitsubishi Eclipse right now. The argument that they "immediately lose a bunch of resale value, the minute you drive them off the lot" is technically correct. But realistically, it doesn't mean as much as people pretend it does. In reality, MOST people buying a new car plan on keeping it for a while. The initial loss in value only affects someone who makes a poor purchasing decision and tries to trade the almost new car back in after only a few months through maybe the first year or two of ownership.
Meanwhile, loans on new vehicles tend to have much better interest rates than loans on used vehicles, so you're not giving as much of your money away to some bank as you pay off your car....
My new car also included such "bonuses" as free roadside assistance during the warranty period. Used car owners generally don't receive benefits like this, and have to pay for a "motor club" membership like AAA to get the same thing.
The warranty itself can be a factor, too. You may or may not get one with your used car purchase, depending on its mileage and all. But it could easily "make or break" the overall "value" of your purchase if something major like a transmission fails 2 or 3 years into the vehicle ownership.
Ultimately, for me, the assurance that my new car doesn't have some worn out part just waiting to fail and greatly inconvenience me when I need my car the most is the *best* reason for buying new. I only own one vehicle, and I count on it daily. If I'm supposed to go to a customer site and can't make it because my car breaks down, that costs me income from both ends at once on a used car that's not in warranty. (Loss of income on a job I can't do, AND loss of income paying for a car repair.) Generally, the dealership will even give me a free rental car while repairing mine under warranty - which they'd never do on used car repairs.
That chance that it gets hit is only half as large as with a regular car!
Bert
The amount of sulfur content in the exhaust is entirely dependent on how much is fuel - it can removed during refinement, it just costs a little more. Europe has had strict requirements about sulfur content for quite some time, and the US and Canada both passed laws last year to do the same. As far as the other nasty stuff, catalytic converters and in-engine burn efficiency on diesels have improved to the point where that is really no longer a concern. The only downside that I know of is that some diesel vehicles still have problems getting started in very cold climates, and until the engine warms up may have higher particulate concentration? This might be a concern in canada - I haven't looked into it much myself as I live in the US SW.
Diesel is a great fuel for the economically minded as it is more energy efficient than gasoline, and can also supplemented with biodiesel to the extent it is available (which in turn is much much more efficient than ethanol).
You're right about diesels - in the 1970's and 80's that is. Modern diesels are far cleaner, and the US mandated low sulfur diesel this year for all 2007 and later cars.
BMW and Merc both have developed a european-spec diesel which if theoretically driven in the LA or DC areas where smog is a problem, the air going into the engine is dirtier than the air coming out of the exhaust. You're actually CLEANING the environment, just a little bit. The Mercedes engine passed the 2007 US diesel emissions standards as is, so is currently on sale here already. BMW will begin offering the diesel in their SUV models in 2008. All other manufactuers (including Volkswagen, the only other company that currently produces a small diesel for sedans) are currently refining their engines to meet the new US standards for low sulfer fuels.
In all seriousness, mile-for-mile, a modern diesel engine using low sulfur diself fuel is cleaner than a gasoline engine of the same displacement. Get over it.
"smart" with a lowercase "s" is the correct brand and car name.
>... and you won't get laughed at in them either.
That doesn't happen here in the uk, since the vehicle is seen as cool, distinctive and effective.
On the other hand the usa motor market that seems to think driving tanks with the same fuel economy as cars from 80 years ago is ok - they get laughed at, by everyone else in the world. Attitudes are changing this way, thankfully, and maybe one day the usa will 'get it'.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
I am getting 33km/l (78 miles per gallon in twelve-finger units) in my Volkswagen Lupo 3L from 2001.
The Lupo can transport 4 persons and reach a top speed in excess of 165km/h (102mph in twelve-finger units). Read more here.
Volkswagen has now ceased building this gem - and well, I guess it would never sell in SUV-loving States of America anyway.
Of course, if you actually drive like that, which car your driving becomes totally moot because no driver will respect you anyhow.
I take it you've never driven in Boston...
And for the record, no, I do not regularly drive like that. But having the option to forcefully merge...
In any case, "respect" comes from a long relationship. On the road, that means nothing. A bunch of strangers that I'll never see again, and around whom I drive defensively because I can't trust any of them to have slept well last night; to have at least one hand on the wheel rather than one on the coffee and one on the cellphone; to have a BAC of zero; To have a blood benzo level of zero (Xanax/Klonopin/Ativan/etc have warnings on them for a reason, bluehairs!); to generally count as what we might call "sane" and not suddenly express their self loathing with suicide-by-head-on-collision. I "respect" them only in the same way I "respect" a pissed-off badger - I do my best to avoid them.
I just rented out a Smart for two days this week.
:(
I was skeptical at first, but figured I'd rent it for the experience. Having driven it for two days I'm a total convert. When you get into it, you notice that it not only has plenty of room inside for two people and their stuff, but that you actually sit higher up than in most regular cars. The car seems quite stable, even at speed up to 100kmh and probably faster, but I didn't really have a chance to take it any faster an this.
The suspension is maybe a bit too hard and sporty in it's feel, you can feel rough roads a bit too well. The interior quality was excellent and I like the dash design. The seats were very comfy and it was very easy to find a good seating position. Like I said, there's plenty of room for even big and tall people.
The engine is small and turbo charged and has plenty of oomh, though only at higher rpm's and you have to wait for the turbo to spool. It has six gears and an automatic transmission. You can use the shifter to go up and down the gears on your own or switch it into automatic. My only gripe is the automatic taking way too long to downshift when you want to surge, but supposedly that's been fixed in the newer version (ours was the 1st gen).
Really truly the best part was the pitiful amount of fuel it used. I filled the tank up as soon as I got it, and the gauge indicated a full tank (a very unscientific 5 bar gauge) when I returned it to the rental place. I actually felt a bit cheated by it, since I didn't use most of the gas I put in the tank
Like I said, I have reservations about high speed handling in an emergency. I've seen the crash test videos, and I believe the car to be safe enough in crash, it's avoiding one I'm still not sure about. The car does have every electronic measure available, ABS, stability control and other stuff, but I didn't want to test it on public roads.
On the other hand, most SUV's will flip easily if you do a high speed left-right, so it's a matter of being careful I guess.
My other gripe is the transmission, though I can live with it and as I said, it's been fixed in the newer model.
All in all, I'm seriously looking into buying one as a second car. A Smart would fulfill about 95% of my motoring needs, but I would still need my current large gas guzzler for transporting more than me and my spouse and driving to see our relatives through elk infested wintry roads at night.
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
The Smart roadster will not be released at all because it is no longer in production by Smart
So smaller vehicles are the answer......guess we need semis and trains the size of pickup trucks.
That, or we need to be as strict with the licensing for every car as we currently are with the license for a semi or train. If you are going to drive a vehicle that is that dangerous to everyone else on the road, shouldn't you have to meet much stricter requirements?
We are all just people.
But at 40mpg and $14,000 it's basically a 2 seat Civic. And my next car will probably be a one year old Civic.
And you can be sure that the rednecks down here in NC will pass some kind of law making it prohibitively expensive or uninsurable. Because as we all know, small is faggoty Eurocommunism. Down here in AMERICA, guldurnit, 75% all new Veee-hick-ul registrations are trucks and SUVs. Learn the damn rules.
Am I missing something on fuel standards? I had an 89 Honda CRX which looks like it was bigger than a smart car and it got 50mpg even when I had run 250000+ miles on it. I now have a BMW 328i sport coupe that gets in the high 30s and has 267hp. Why would I want a little car like that if I only get 40? Other than it is cheap and cute. But just purely on economic and enviromental impact, I don't get it.
I'm sorry to have to burst your bubble, but 40mpg is nothing. Most cars in the UK can do this. My 1987 Vauxhall Astra (1.3L engine, petrol) regularly gave me 43mpg (and lasted 13 years before it was written off by thieves. My girlfriends Skoda Octavia 1.9L diesel can get about 60mpg on a good run and averages 54mpg including urban commuting. If you don't know what a Skoda Octavia is it is an Audi A4 with a different skin styling - made by VW/Audi group - they own Skoda and Seat.
It is a true indictment of how wasteful car designs and usage are in the US that you think 40mpg is newsworthy. BTW, your $3.50/gallon petrol is cheap. We pay £0.97 per litre - thats $1.94 per litre to you, or about $9 per gallon. So when you complain about your "high" US petrol, sorry, gas, prices, you are complaining about something that is not high at all.
Suddenly I have a mental image of the mythbusters creating a cooking robot to try to make breakfast while another robot sets the cruise control while taking its hands off the wheel...
After all, nobody could envision the car wandering off the road under this scenario without a proper test, could they?
Fully agree. Given the various harms monster vehicles cause, the only way to rationally preserve people's freedom to drive them is to take steps to make their owners bear the costs imposed on all other motorists by their self-indulgent vehicle choice.
First, increase the gas tax until the drivers of heavier vehicles are paying their fair share of the road repair bill. (There are very rational arguments for subsidizing road wear caused by heavy vehicles, such as semis, used commercially. There are no rational arguments for subsidizing excess road wear by mindlessly heavy personal vehicles.)
Second, actuarially increase insurance premiums for large, poorly performing vehicles until they are in line with the extra deaths caused by those vehicles in collisions with rationally sized vehicles.
Third, given that truck-based vehicles in particular are much more challenging to drive safely than average cars (as they take much longer to stop, have less body control which means more likelihood of losing grip, and are far more prone to rollover), require special licensing. Of course given the variety of vehicles on the road any line we draw between normal vehicles and heavy, trucklike vehicles is likely to be arbitrary. But I'll propose one anyway: To drive a vehicle for personal use that is EITHER over 5000 pounds empty OR over 78" tall, you need a Class C CDL with the attendant training and much tougher skills test.
Or a minivan. Or a crossover.
You realize that what you've just admitted is that you're ...
1) putting most other drivers around you at risk, because of your high bumpers, poor braking and handling, and excess weight; ...
2) paying who knows how much extra in gas, and putting the resulting extra CO2 into the atmosphere;
3) actually *sacrificing* space compared to rational people-moving vehicles (because of your high floor and long hood)
... because you're insecure about how you look.
No trunk. Less space than a Prius. Lame.
Help him out. The myth is reviewed at snopes.com. Maybe his dad reads snopes just for stories to unload on him.
My father drives a semi and he couldn't agree with you more! His favorite object of complaint are the large motor homes that people drive and he makes a good argument: How can a person drive something that is potentially bigger then his semi (compared to when he's pulling a short trailer) do so without any special treatment, especially when they are more likely to be old.
It probably doesn't help that we live in the retirement state (Florida).
We've had smartCars available in Canada since late 2004/early 2005, and I see them frequently on the road here (Winnipeg). It never fails, anytime I mention that I wouldn't mind getting one, people always bring up the crash/safety issue. Try to argue that I commonly ride my bicycle in heavy traffic, not willingly - there aren't many cycling paths here - that's dangerous. People ride motorcycles at high speeds - that's dangerous too. Why is everyone a safety freak when it comes to the smartCar? Incidentally, from my personal experience, males are much more opposed to the car than females are.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some idea balls to remove from a manatee tank.
Try two adults and four kids. That was my family when we were growing up. We never had an SUV. The typical seating arrangement when we all went somewhere was Mom and Dad up front with one kid between them and three kids in the back. Was it cramped? Sure, but rare were the times when we all had to be piled into the car at the same time.
Nowadays, I would suggest against that arrangement for safety reasons (this was when most cars didn't even have seat belts). Still, there is nothing wrong with two adults up front and three kids (or one kid and two cats, in carriers) in the back of any modern sedan.
I can't believe that someone out there actually thinks that two adults, one child, and two cants (in carriers) will not fit in a sedan. I mean, really. Damn. Not only can they safely fit, but quite comfortably.
By your standard, almost every family in the country should have an SUV.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
The burden of gas taxes disproportionately falls on the poor, not the rich people who are driving the large, luxury SUVs. Gas taxes are flat, $ per gallon taxes, which means, all things held constant, that a poorer person is paying more than a richer person. But, all things are not held constant, you say? Too true. The rich can afford new cars that get better gas mileage, whereas a poorer person must drive the car they have, which is likely to be an older, less efficient car. Connecting the dots, that means the rich are likely paying less per mile than the poor person. If the function of a gas tax is to pay for wear and tear done on the roads by vehicles, then it would seem logical to tax the travel, not the fuel. This doesn't even get into the whole debate over alternative fuels or electric vehicles, which would completely bypass any/all vehicle fuel taxes.