Thoughts on buying a Smart car?
2007-11-27 05:17 pmSo, I’m thinking about buying a Smart car. I like the cars because they get good gas mileage (40+ mpg), they’ve been on sale in Europe for over a decade (so many of the bugs have been worked out), and they’re tiny. I mean, really tiny. A Smart car (106 in) is over 3 ft shorter than a Mini Cooper (145 in).
Thus, they can be parked almost anywhere. Which is a really big feature for someone like me. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I hate looking for parking.
Plus, they’re really cute:
The main disadvantage for me is their lack of cargo capacity. However, I think I’ve found a solution for that:
Also, with a stock engine, they also don’t have a whole lot of pick up and go. The stock engine only has 60 HP 71 HP, after all. However, if you swap in a 180hp Suzuki GSX-R1000 engine, the car can go 0-60 in 4.2 sec. and 12.4 in the quarter mile.
They’re due to begin sales in the U.S. in the first quarter of next year.
Anyone drive one of these? What are your thoughts?
Original: craschworks - comments


no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:34 am (UTC)Safety aside, the efficiency and convenience (except cargo) seem worthwhile.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:35 am (UTC)I personally wouldn't be able to have one save for as a secondary vehicle. I always have want of being able to haul decently sized stuff and material, and would seriously dislike cutting out that option (renting a truck is still, in general, too much of a pain in the ass for spontaneous 'I found a cool thing!' recovery missions)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:39 am (UTC)I think they would be primarily of use for San Francisco dwellers - do you come into the city that often that you need such a small car? Aren't all the suburban parking spaces regular sized?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:42 am (UTC)>>>with a stock engine, they also don’t have a whole lot of pick up and go. The stock engine only has 60 HP, after all.
the model T only had about 20hp, the original VW bug had about 40.
>>>However, if you swap in a 180hp Suzuki GSX-R1000 engine
this is america jack! use a V twin with juice.
any idea what the price range would be?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 12:45 am (UTC)Prices range from $12 - $17,000 depending on features.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 01:00 am (UTC)man, I need a car or travel icon
Date: 2007-11-28 01:22 am (UTC)This is also funny, because I finally bought my first car and it's an '03 Taurus. A frickin beast, it is. But it's ubersafe, I can park it, and drive my stuff across the country with it. My next car's gonna be smaller.
Re: man, I need a car or travel icon
Date: 2007-11-28 01:24 am (UTC)Re: man, I need a car or travel icon
From:Re: man, I need a car or travel icon
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 01:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 01:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 01:54 am (UTC)Then again, my scooter gets 100mpg.
But I can't haul a little trailer behind my scooter, either.
Darn these tradeoffs! Why can't anything be perfect?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 02:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 03:38 am (UTC)I keep telling her that size and safety-wise, they're no better than golf carts, and the way people run red lights around here, you'd be dead within a year (between myself and my husband, we've been rear-ended in the pick-up 3 times - we don't even bother getting the fender fixed anymore. In a smart car, that would be a total loss, I imagine)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 07:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 03:49 am (UTC)O_o
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 05:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 04:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 04:11 am (UTC)i still wouldn't want to get in a wreck in one versus, say, my durango (which is not all that big as far as trucks go).
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 05:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 04:40 am (UTC)My bf previously had a Mini Cooper and that thing was incredibly safe. Safer test ratings than many SUVs and pickups, so small doesn't always mean sacrificing safety. [or alliteration]
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 05:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 05:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 06:22 am (UTC)For myself, I want to get one once I move to an area I won't be commiting mass genocide while driving. It's the right size for me, cargo concerns can be abated thru rental, or trailer as you've shown, and I've been a hatchback person all my driving life ( my favorite car is still my Festive 4 speed, which easily did everything i needed it to and far far more).
Impact wise, yes, it's a hardframe- but the other vehicles you're likely to incur probably aren't. they'll eat your limited mass, and that's probably alot of the thinking behind it- anything large enough to pose a threat to you will have adequate crumple area, or be able to deflect you. It's a fairly nimble little car, and is small, so if you're not an oblivious driver who just careens into things, you're more apt to be able to get out of the situation in the first place (Which is also why I like to drive smaller motorcycles, as they're lighter and can be flicked more easily, saving your ass).
They've sold how many Smartcars worldwide? :)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 05:08 pm (UTC)I drive a Corolla most days. It is probably the least impact resistant car I have owned, aside from an old Mazda I used to drive like 20 years ago. The Corolla is cheap to own and operate, and it gives me a level of protection that I'm comfortable with. Everything's a tradeoff. How many of us will get into full frontal 70+ MPH collisions? I submit that in any vehicle coming from 70-0 at a high rate of speed will be detrimental to the occupants.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 07:41 pm (UTC)As you say though, everything requires tradeoffs.
Why not just go with a motorcycle (or a trike)?
Date: 2007-11-28 08:15 pm (UTC)And you can laugh at 40MPG.
Insurance may cost a little more, so you should look at TCO, and there may also be some weather issues (I recently saw a "two steering wheels trike" that's production that should answer some rainy season concerns), but if you're already willing to forgo the crumple zone, don't limit yourself to four wheels...
Re: Why not just go with a motorcycle (or a trike)?
Date: 2007-11-28 08:36 pm (UTC)A motorcycle is inherently unstable. Thus, you must constantly be on the look out for road hazards (gravel, oil slicks, ice). They're smaller, so you're less visible. Should you crash, you've got no protection from road rash, other than your leathers. No roll cage. No safety belt.
Plus, you have no built-in cargo space. No weather protection. You have to wear a helmet, boots, and leathers every time you ride. You can't carry a passenger unless they're wearing gear too. And the MPG's of a motorcycle aren't that much better. A Honda Nighthawk 750, for example, only gets 41/48 MPG city/highway.
http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/MotorcycleFuelEconomyGuide/Honda.htm
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 01:56 am (UTC)I have a Smart, and I think the safety concerns are a bit overblown. The car is a big huge rollcage.
I've had one for three years now, and have driven it on the highway pretty much everyday in that time. I don't think I've ever felt unsafe. Admittedly, I don't know if you need ABS & ESP in your location.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 04:54 am (UTC)