The 2010 Honda Accord Diesel gets 62 mpg on the highway. Not a dollar to dollar comparison obviously but it was worth mentioning.
There are no redeaming qualities to the Smart Car except parking and the novelty aspect of it. It’s so ugly it’s cute. It would be the perfect Island car but I would never drive it on the highway.
The Fit is ginormous inside. It’s like it’s got a Cargo Hatch of Holding or something.
Well, it’s not here yet and hasn’t been rated. So, that’s just advertising flak for now. But it would be nice to see a few more smaller Diesels on the market.
Certainly it’s not bigger inside than most SUV’s? I was just curious why Collaborator felt it had more utility than most SUV’s. It can’t be because it can carry more.
It does have more useful room than some (SUVs come in all sizes, you know). But there’s other stuff to utility than just load capacity. Parking, gas mileage, maneuvering.
…and are significantly more likely to injure the occupants of anything else you hit, though you may or may not care.
My sister-in-law lives in central London, and has a Smart ForTwo. The only reason she’s kept it is the ease of parking - you can pull into most parallel parking spaces even in Britain sideways (ie., with the nose/rear of the car against the curb), which is nearly as much fun as it sounds.
Otherwise, it’s a useless piece of crap. It gets horribly wobbly in any sort of crosswind, sounds as though a dozen beehives are strapped to the roof, wants to fall over any time it’s shown a corner, and smells funny.
That last part may be my nieces’ fault, though.
The Fit is great- and much more practical in the US, frankly- but slightly overpriced because of massive demand everyone wants one. You can get a Corolla/Civic/Elantra/Focus for more or less the same price.
Collaborator said most SUV’s. I would doubt it has more room than even the smallest SUV.
Fit - 57.3 feet cargo room
CRV (Hondas smallest SUV) 72.9 cubic feet of cargo room
Mileage, parking and maneuverability are not what we mean by utility.
Mileage would come under economics. Parking I suppose is convenience. Maneuverability I guess would come under fun. Though some would also say safety. Which I don’t necessarily disagree with. But it has nothing to do with utility.
I have nothing against the Fit at all. Looks like a good little car. I think Collaberators comment was just incorrect.
Utility is the quality of being useful. The Fit is undoubtedly more useful to the average driver than any SUV, even if it doesn’t have the word utility in its name.
Yeah, but when you say “has more utility than most SUVs,” one tends to assume that the utility under consideration is specifically the kind of utility that Sport **Utility **Vehicles are supposed to offer. (Namely, cargo room, towing capacity, and offroad ability–all three of which the Fit would probably not provide to the same degree.)
It probably would have been more accurate to say that the Fit is more useful to the average person who purchases an SUV. (They probably don’t need the full cargo capacity, aren’t going to be towing anything like a boat or a trailer, won’t be off streets or highways, and would benefit from the better mileage, lower profile, maneuverability, etc.)
Those are my thoughts too, Shot from Guns. If you are going to say it has more utility than most Sport Utility vehicles, you should be comparing it to the utilities that SUVs provide.
I suspect this was really nothing more than a pot shot at SUV’s which seems to be a sport here on the SDMB. Sorry for the sidetrack.
Sorry, I’m too busy getting my Suburban ready for the track to have time for your semantic games!
After all, it’s a Sport Utility Vehicle.
You should have said you were preparing to teach it ping-pong.
Oooh! I like that one!
I bet some jackass would have come in here and been all like “ping pong isn’t a sport!” though.
My response would be, “Fine, then, I’ll teach it rhythmic gymnastics. Ass.”
That’s not a sport either.
My truck plays rugby, god damn it*.
*At least, it would, if I owned a Suburban. Or a truck of any sort.
Both ping-pong and rhythmic gynmastics are actually contested in the Olympics. While recognized by the IOC, rugby is not. Ergo, the former two are sports, whereas rugby is on the level of korfball and surfing.
I therefore feel safe in coming to the conclusion that you are a good-for-nothing Dutch beach bum.
The IOC is the international forum for the expression of corruption, not sport. 
What the hell is korfball?
This, apparently. I just picked it out of the list of sports that, like rugby, are recognized-but-not-contested because it sounded the most ridiculous and made-up.
Hijack? Who, us?
Look, a distraction! sprints away