That’s still up in the air. Last I heard, the Smart Fortwo (the linked two-seater) will continue in production, but they’ve canned the mini-SUV and the roadster. I’m not certain about the four-seater. I’ve heard all kinds of conflicting stories…
…which siggests that M-B management has not yet figured out that in a world of rising gas prices, small cars are going to become more popular. There’s a several-month-long waiting list for the fortwo in Canada (when they were first released, four months, but I think it has diminished).
IIRC, the A-Class and the Smart are basically the same vehicle. I might be mistaken, I’m not much of a fan of European cars, so I don’t pay too much attention to them.
Well, if you just kept the materials used the same (adding safety features, of course) and dropped in a modern engine and transmission, you’d probably get somewhere around 60 MPG or better out of the thing. Make it a hybrid, and you could squeeze about 100 MPG out of it. (IIRC, the Dymaxion got twice the mileage of contemporary cars, so I’m doubling the mileage of modern cars.) No doubt better improvements could be had by building it out of more modern materials (while staying away from exotic composites).
So far, there’s only been a slight drop in sales. And nearly all the carmakers have hybrid models of their SUVs in the works, if they’re not already selling them, so I think it’s a little premature to declare the death of the SUV. And AFAIK, the high fuel prices haven’t driven semi’s off the road.
I’ve seen both on the streets in Europe, and I always felt they were two different cars. The A class is small , but the Smart was even smaller
BTW it was the A class that had the moose avoidance problem. Four Swedish automotive writers turned one over in a moose avoidance test. Not a good way to get positive press on a new car. :smack: MB stopped selling them until a suspension upgrade could be designed and implemented. Previously sold cars were retro fitted. Also spawned a whole slew of A class jokes.
That French page proudly proclaims " 3 794 km avec 1 litre d’essence", but converting that to American gives me 8924 mpg. Which is nothing to sneer at, of course, but a bit short of the 10,701 that Hoodoo Ulove claims.
And I doubt that “double the efficiency of contemporary cars” is the proper way to evaluate the Buckycar. Most of a car’s energy loss is to air resistance, and modern, non-Bucky cars are already much more aerodynamic than typical cars of the 1930s. In other words, we’ve already mostly incorporated the Buckycar’s biggest advantage. True, it’s more efficient than modern vans, but I suspect that that thing has very little interior space per passenger, and would be somewhat uncomforable.
I can’t speak of the interior space, but every photo I’ve seen of the interior indicates that it was cavernous. And as for the fuel economy estimate, I don’t think it’s that far off. The drag coefficient for the Dymaxion is something like .19, which, IIRC is still better than anything produced today. Also, the Dymaxion was using a 1930s V-8, modern engines develop the same power in a much smaller package. I’d WAG that the four banger in my Pontiac has similar performance characteristics to that old Ford V-8.
Ultralight, high-milegae cars are certainly feasible. However, Idon’t seeabig market for them,untill gasoline gets to around $6.00/gallon. The reason is: you aresharing the road with 29 ton, 18 wheeler trucks, and big cars driven by rich people. Your survival chances in a collission will be just about zero.
So no, I’m not eager to risk my life driving one of these cockroach things just yet.
Of course, should gasoline get to $10.00/gallon-maybe everybody will switch!
It appeared in Newsweek early last month. It doesn’t advocate 500mpg just using gasoline. It suggests the further development of existing technology to burn fuels like alcohol petroleum blends in hybrid type vehicles. All of the technology currently exists and is in use but not in combination.
It does gloss over issues such as; infrastructure, the increased need for electrical generation capacity and the massive expansions needed in the manufacturing of the combined fuels. However I think it is much more realistic than any idea yet proposed.
There seems to be several versions of the Dymaxion car, shown in these photos. Car #1 is a 4-seater and much smaller than the other two. Do you now which one achieved 30mpg, and how reliable that figure is? And even if it was possible then, we have modern concerns such as impact safety and vehicle size (parking space restrictions) that may make it difficult to reproduce the original performance.
Anyway, I don’t see why a 11-seater 30mpg vehicle would help in today’s world, where most people drive alone. An ultra-compact commuter car would do more good, for families who need a second car just for one family member to get to work.
Incidentally, I wouldn’t hesitate to drive the VW 1-liter car on the Interstate. It looks much safer than the bikes and trikes which I ride regularly on major roads. And since the car only weighs 290kg, I’m sure it accelerates well enough.
Cars 1-3 we all 19 feet long. The illustration that shows the 4 seats in it, is a rough preliminary sketch of the car made before construction was completed.
That’s true, but most people don’t want those. They like the big honkin’ SUVs and pick ups.
Oh, I don’t think that the car’s unsafe, it’s just not my style, mostly.
Once again we have to remind you of what forum you’re in. This is GQ. We expect you to NOT be rude to other posters. You can poo-poo the ideas, but don’t make it about the poster. Don’t be rude. We have other fora for that.
I heard that Daimler-Chrysler is having trouble getting the Smarts declared safe by NHTSA, and that currently you’re not supposed to take them onto major roads. Is this true?
