After a lengthy hiatus, a new report: The Smart ForTwo.
A two-seater CONVERTIBLE :eek:, this tiny econocar is quite roomy inside.
Model tested: black with black interior and brushed aluminum trim.
Auto, 3 cyl engine…the tiny powerplant is more than adequate to motivate this ultra-lightweight sub-subcompact. Much like the Kei cars marketed in Japan. (could this be the first in the coming invasion?)
The extremely short wheelbase makes maneuvering a snap, but cornering feels quite odd to those used to a car twice as long.
The handling is quite good as well, though the small wheels and short suspension travel will balk at anything more than moderately rough terrain.
I highly doubt it. I sat in a few models at the Auto Show this year. I can see them being popular for people living in dense urban centers, but really only a few cities fit that criteria. The US is just too spread out and those few dense urban centers are all in cold weather areas. Cold weather cities tend to have severe pothole issues in the winter which the Smart can’t handle. Also, so long as SUVs and Tractors are common on suburban and urban streets people will be far too scared to drive in something that light.
With a pricetag of $16,000+ and a disappointing 36 mpg, I’m not sure where the motivation is. If you live in Manhattan it might be decent, maybe downtown SF, but even Chicago and Washington aren’t dense enough to pressure people away from mid-size cars.
ETA: I should also mention that it was shockingly cheap and plastickey inside for a M-B brand. I know it’s somewhat cheap, but $16K is still pricey enough where I’d expect you to at least try and make it look and feel decent inside.
I was all excited about this…but it only comes in manual transmission? I have bad knees, and in particular I injured my left knee while playing football as a kid. I drove manual for a while, but eventually had to give it up, as it put too much stress on my knee.
Otherwise, it looks perfect for me. I don’t haul stuff (and my husband has a pickup for that, anyway), I only drive around in the city, and sometimes I have to get into tight spots in my car.
I think that the Dallas/Fort Worth area is a dense urban center, and we complain bitterly when the temperature falls below 40 F. We don’t know what to do when it snows, other than look at it in amazement.
Dallas isn’t even remotely dense as far as cities go. Southern and Western cities are sprawling with fast moving boulevards and highways. The vast majority of businesses and homes have parking.
This is what really surprised me. I’ve got an '06 Scion xA with a few extra toys, so it cost barely over $15K. As long as I don’t try to exceed about 60MPH for extended periods, I can routinely get 37-40 MPG, seat 4, or lay down the back seats and load a LOT of stuff in it. (When we drove from MD to FL down I95, we averaged around 31 - poor little Scion doesn’t like a sustained 75MPH.)
Other than its unique looks, I don’t see what the Smart has to offer.
I suppose the presumption is that the upside is small size and people with that need in the extreme will pay for it. I’m not sure there are enough places in the US that require you to be able to make a 20 foot diameter circle and park in a space too small for a Focus.
MotorTrend and Top Gear say that the smart has an automatic clutch. Was yours a true automatic, or did you have to signal your own gear changes? If so, how did you find the transmission. Top Gear hated it because the transmission didn’t know what it was; Transmission: “Am I a flower pot? A windmill? A squirrel? Oh I know, I am a transmission! Lets swap some cogs around!”
Edit: FairyChatMom, with that mileage, you also have to consider that the smart drinks only premium fuel.
The EPA changed their fuel economy standard a few years ago to make it more “realistic,” because most people were getting worse fuel economy than the EPA number. It seems to me the new standard is a little too pessimistic. Your xA is rated by the EPA as 27 mpg city, 35 mpg highway, 30 mpg combined. By the same standard, the Smart Fortwo is rated 33 mpg city, 41 mpg highway, 36 mpg combined, which is 20% better than the Scion xA.
Apparently there’s an ad in the UK claiming that said “on one tiny 33 litre tank, a smart car can do 433 miles.” That translates to 49.7 mpg. After some complaints the Advertising Standards Authority investigated the matter and concluded that ad is not misleading, because if you drive the Smart at a sustained 40 mph, it does 73 miles per imperial gallon (= 60 miles per US gallon).
I’m a Smart-owning, England-living, American ex-pat so I feel qualified to jump into this thread. The early versions used a 600cc turbocharged 3 cylinder engine developed by Mercedes. The transmissions is (I believe) by Gertrag and is a 6 speed sequential semi-automatic. That means there is no clutch pedal and the computer takes care of the gear changes. In one mode the computer will take care of all the shifting for you, in the other you can do it yourself. The computer will still downshift for you to prevent stalling. It’s this ‘feature’ that can be annoying. Say your driving along in 4th and slow down for a roundabout. You see that it’s clear so put your foot down to go across. But the transmission has decided that 3rd would be better and starts the downshift. It feels like a long time but it’s probably only about a second that you’re coasting along doing nothing while the transmission sorts itself out.
The version that the US gets is the latest revision, a 1000cc Mitsubishi engine. Over here there are turbo and non-turbo versions. Base price for the turbo version is around £8700 and it gets 57mpg (Imperial gallons). It looks like they set the prices for the US when the dollar was weaker than today.
Is it marketed as M.B.? They don’t make a fuss about that here. I think part of the reason for all the plastic is that one of the design goals was to use a lot of recycled and/or recyclable material.
Do I think they make sense for the US? Not really. There are other small cars from brands already established that would probably be cheaper, more practical, and nearly as economical. Some that spring to mind are the Ford Ka, VW Polo, and Toyota Aygo. I think what America needs instead of micro-cars like the Smart are more diesels. Take the Mini for example. The stand petrol version gets 52mpg while the diesel gets 72. For a larger example a BMW 325i does 33 while the 325d does 40.
My fiance just got one of these the first of the year, but I have been driving it a bunch since he cannot for awhile. (he had a seizure out of the blue in Dec.)
I will address a couple of things quickly…feel free to ask more questions.
Ours is the Pure, the least expensive of the three models, and was a little over 13k. It can be driven as an automatic or as a clutchless manual. I vastly prefer driving as a manual, it hesitates between gears even in auto. I have honestly not done a MPG check yet. And kferr, yes they are sold at Mercedes dealerships here in their own Smart showroom.
My biggest gripe about this car is people freaking out about it. I have had more people want me to roll down my window in 5 degree weather so I can hear them say “oh my god it’s so tiny!” in the last 2 months. I have enjoyed the more in depth conversations in parking lots with folks who have specific questions about it. Either way, I feel as though Smart should give owners a box of brochures when they buy it.
I actually don’t live in Dallas, and don’t drive in it either if I can help it. I live and drive in Fort Worth, and that’s quite dense enough for me, thankyouverymuch. I’ve been in Chicago, and I do agree that it’s much, much denser than the DFW area. It also seems to have much better public transportation. But y’all really need to do something about the way your water tastes!
To tie this back to the original topic, I still think that a Smart car might be great for a driver in the DFW area. We don’t all need a truck or SUV to drive around all the time, yet it seems that at least half of the vehicles on the road are monsters. A lot of people DO need to haul stuff around on a regular basis, but I think that the Smart car could be a commuting car, while the truck or SUF could be the weekend hauling car, used for hauling kids or groceries or other stuff around.
I just bought a brand new Mitsubishi Eclipse GT for 23K (cause it has the sunroof and the Rockford Fosgate sound system) and I can’t even imagine paying 16K for a 3cyl (half of what the Eclipse GT has) car that would probably get eaten by a Pittsburgh pothole.
The Eclipse isn’t a great big car, but it does have a 3.8L V6 under the hood, and I feel more comfortable merging onto the Parkway East Outbound at Squirrel Hill when I know that I’m going to go the instant my foot hits the gas.
The point isn’t that the Smart is more practical or economical than an SUV or a Truck. That’s blatantly obvious and the two markets simply don’t intersect at all. The question is how does a Smart compare to the other American sub-compacts. The Scion xA, the Ford Focus, Chevy Cobalt, Kia Rio, Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris are it’s competitors and the price and fuel economy don’t seem to justify the sacrifice of the engine displacement, trunk capacity, rear seat and sense of safety.
Maybe because the Corolla only gets 30 mpg? Also some people don’t need more than 2 seats, and would rather have a car that’s easy to park and doesn’t take much space.
You are probably right. I am only very marginally interested in things like engine displacement, and tend to tune out any conversation that will include that phrase. I read about the Smart in a couple of places, and thought that it was interesting, because in my case, all I want in my car is the ability to run around in it, get decent milage, and be able to manuever into and out of parking spaces. I thought that it might be a good commuting car for my husband, who has to drive 50 miles each day to and from his job. He doesn’t need trunk capacity or a rear seat most workdays. I might also use one, instead of my current car, a Dodge Intrepid, to get around the city when I get out of the house.
You’re quite right, I am very ignorant about cars. I am not even sure why you are limiting the competition to American sub-compacts, as opposed to all sub-compacts. Unless it’s the “Buy American” thing, which I won’t argue with. One thing to consider is that even I am mildly interested in the Smart car.
I read about the Smart in a couple of places, and thought that it was interesting, because in my case, all I want in my car is the ability to run around in it, get decent milage, and be able to manuever into and out of parking spaces. I thought that it might be a good commuting car for my husband, who has to drive 50 miles each day to and from his job. He doesn’t need trunk capacity or a rear seat most workdays. I might also use one, instead of my current car, a Dodge Intrepid, to get around the city when I get out of the house.