Not sure if you misunderstood my post or what; your Saturn was rated under the old EPA standards.
I don’t think they were referring to ratings - they were referring to actual
Well let’s go look at the results.
In this corner a Smart and in this corner a Hummer H3
(all test results from the IIHS web site)
All rating go (from bad to good)
Poor
Marginal
Acceptable
Good
Round #1 Rear crash protection: “For each seat/head restraint, rear-end crash protection is an assessment of occupant protection against neck injury in rear impacts at low to moderate speeds. Although such injuries usually aren’t serious, they occur frequently.”
Hummer Overall rating Poor
Smart Overall rating Acceptable
Round #2 Side impact protection
I would note here that the sled that is used is standard for all crashes. You would think that a high vehicle like a Hummer would preform well in such a senario
Hummer Good except for Torso injury which was marginal "Driver — Measures taken from the dummy indicate that rib fractures and/or internal organ injuries would be possible in a crash of this severity. The risk of significant injuries to other body regions is low.’
Smart Good across the board. “Driver — Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.”
Round #3 Offset frontal OK, we saved the F=M X A for last.
Hummer
Head neck Good
Chest Good
Left foot Good
Right foot Poor “Forces on the right tibia indicate that injuries to the lower leg would be likely.” Looking at the picture I would say a seriously fucked up knee is also a strong possibility.
Smart
Head/neck Acceptable
Chest Good
Left foot Good
Right foot Acceptable “Injury measures — Measures taken from the neck and chest indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions in a crash of this severity. Forces on the the dummy’s head were high when it hit the steering wheel through the airbag, indicating that head injuries would be possible. Forces on the right tibia indicate that injuries to the lower leg would also be possible. Head acceleration from the roof rail hit was negligible.”
From where I sit, in an IIHS crash the Smart is the better of the two vehicles.
Or for a slightly different comparsion, let’s put the hummer up against a safe car a Volvo. Just to make it fun, we will cut the top off of the Volvo and use a convertible. I would note that the C70 is built on Volvo’s smallest platform.
Rear impact Good straight across.
Side impact Goods with 2 exceptions Acceptable torso and marginal rear seat head protection. Since the side impact bags aren’t available in the rear seat, this is kind of expected. The sedan version which has a side curtain bag standard, gets a good in this catagory.
Offset frontal Goods straight across the board “Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.”
How does that equation go again? Heavier cars are always safer? Explain that to me again please, I’m having a bit of trouble grokking it.
[Anecdote] A co-worker of mine was towing a 24 foot fishing boat behind his Volvo 240. He fell asleep at the wheel and hit a stopped 1976 Chevy Impala The pictures taken at the scene showed the Chevy’s bumper was relocated to underneath the rear window of the car. Trunk and rear axle were in the back seat.
My buddy drove the Volvo home.[/anecdote]
I have always driven comparatively small cars and am not in favour of the “arms race” theory which some apply to conclude that one should drive a larger car to be safer.
However, Rick it does seem to me that Liberal does have a point about the unmoving walls that are used in crash testing.
When a vehicle hits an unmoveable wall front on, the front of the car has to absorb all the energy that it takes to stop the car ie a heavy vehicle is its own worst enemy, while a light vehicle has less to cope with.
But if a heavy vehicle and a light vehicle hit head on, (all else being equal), the heavy vehicle will not stop, and will have to absorb less energy.
As far as I can tell, the IHSS tests don’t account for this. May as well acknowledge the point.
The philisophical difficulty I have with the “bigger cars are safer” strategy is that it is a freeloader strategy. It only works by taking advantage of, and endangering, others.
Hey, I’ve had the Twike, and the single passenger Aerorider and Go-One on my fantasy list for a long time now. Heck, I ride my bike a fair amount of the time now! But that’s an awful lot of money for what would not replace my car …
You know Lib the is absolutely no contest between me on my bike and a Hummer. But I still enjoy my bike rides.
A perfectly valid reason to buy a Smart is because you think it’s cute.
Another perfectly valid reason for buying one is because you want to make a statement about your personal values and taste. That’s fine too.
I think a lot of Smart cars get sold for exactly those reasons. And of course, those are the same reasons people buy Mustangs instead of Tauruses. A Smart also makes sense if you are really space-deprived. Either in congested areas, or if you have a small parking space or a small garage, a Smart might make sense.
However, if you’re evaluating the car purely on a ‘save the earth’ basis, and trying to find the one with the lowest footprint, the Smart car isn’t it. A number of hybrid vehicles on the road will beat it.
If you try to justify it purely on economic terms (lowest combination of purchase and operating cost), I don’t think it wins there, either. Cars like the Fit and the Yaris offer much more utility for less money with reasonably close gas mileage.
If you’re evaluating it purely in terms of value (most car for the least money), I don’t think that works either. The Smart Car is a Mercedes product, and Mercedes tends to option ever bloody thing on the car to get the base price low. You need to compare the Smart’s price once you bring it up to spec with the competition, like the Yaris. For example, you don’t even get a tachometer or a clock in the Smart unless you cough up $160 for them. You don’t even get a radio unless you cough up another $340. I just priced out out with a few options (radio, tach, cargo net, air conditioning and floor mats), and it came out to $17,985. And Mercedes charges more for freight and documentation and such than most other car companies. So really, the car is right around $19,000 - $20,000 unless you want a complete stripper.
I priced out a Yaris with the same options (AC, mats, cargo net, stereo with CD), and it came in around $14,500. With freight, just over $15,000. (this is all Canadian, BTW). So I’m paying a four thousand dollar premium for 15% better fuel economy? You’ll have to drive a lot of miles. A Yaris burns 7L/100km, a Smart burns 5.9. I’m going to save 1.1L of gas for each 100km of city driiving I do. Gas is about $1.20/L right now. So every 100km, this car is going to cost me about $1.32 more than driving the Smart. If you drive 30,000 km per year, your fuel savings will be about $396 if you own the Smart. Most people don’t drive that much. You’ll have to drive the car for 15 years before you save back the extra money you paid for the car.
In any event, what you really want is an Ecomobile. I want the one with the bigger engine. I’m sure it’s a death trap on two wheels, but damn it looks like fun.
Uhhh, I’m sure magiver appreciates your attempt to read his/her mind, but if this was the case it’s still a non-comparison. Personal experimenting with an odometer and a calculator is not going to yield the same results as the EPA ratings.
(FTR I’ve never seen anyone give personally arrived-at mpg numbers in the EPA City/Hwy format. Most of us drive under both conditions with any given tank of gas, making it difficult and pointless to calculate separately.)
Round 4 - the real world - Traffic has come to a halt on the highway and the Smart Car is behind an 18 wheeler. The driver of the Hummer is trying to dial his buddy to tell him about the tiny clown car in front of him and doesn’t realize traffic has stopped. He hits the Smart Car crushing it beyond recognition. The automatic wipers come on when they sense moisture, thus cleaning the blood off the windshield.
I get 32 around town, 34/35 combined, and 38 on the highway. Subtract about 1 mph for air conditioning on the highway. If the new EPA numbers are more realistic then we’re comparing apples to apples. I check my mileage at every fill-up. Highway mileage is based on a minimum speed of 65 and usually more like 70.
According to this NY Times road test, there’s not really much going for it. The gas mileage is good, but not stellar. The transmission is absolute crap, inconsistent to the point of undermining the driver’s control of the car and making people motion sick. Handling and road comfort are also bad. Parking laws in most municipalities would negate the small-size advantage. It’s not cost-effective versus other small cars, and offers less carrying capacity, along with less power and performance.
If the Hummer was going fast enough to do that, most other small or medium sized cars would also become a very small coffin, too.
Did you scroll down to Deaths/Million Cars? The safest car was the Toyota Avalon and SUVs were in the bottom half.
You’ve apparently confused me with someone who said something about SUVs.
Also, by calling it “Smart,” they are appealing to the pretentious yuppie target market.
I think they look hideous and dorky, but I guess maybe I would drive one if I were in Rome.
Another Smart driver checking in. Mine’s from 2001 with the 600cc turbo Mercedes engine. Original output was 61bhp. Mine’s been remapped, and has high-flow intake and exhaust resulting in about 75bhp. My daily 25 mile round trip commute fits the definition of mixed-mode pretty well and I get a consistant 50-52mpg (UK gallons). The best I ever recorded was 65mpg.
I don’t know where the idea that they won’t do highway speeds comes from, mine will happlily do 70 on the motorway and is still pulling when the speed limiter kicks in at 85. I also find the brakes more than adequate.
It’s not without faults. The transmission sometimes has a mind of its own. Gertrag could have done better but not within the price constraints. The handling is quirky. With front tyres about half the width of the rears, it naturally understeers. The light weight and narrow front tyres also make cross winds on the motorway interesting.
For me it’s a tool that is quite good at the job I need it for - getting me back & forth to work with an occasional cross-country trip. If you needs are different then you need a different tool.
I call that not doing highway speeds 
:dubious: :rolleyes: so the Hummer magically stops before any damage is done to it huh? :rolleyes: I think you forgot the part about the Hummer driver never walking again without a limp due to a broken leg/shattered right knee.
The nice thing about the IIHS (boy there is a sentence I thought I would never write) is that they give you a standardized metric to evaluate safety. Your Let’s see what kind of bizarre bullshit I can pull out of my ass does not. Hell if we are going to play that game, the Hummer then gets hits by a school bus, the school bus then gets hit by a Greyhound bus, which then gets hit by a runaway steam roller, the runaway steam roller then gets hit by another semi, the semi then gets hit by a railroad train, the train then get hit by an ultra large crude carrier, which then gets hit by a small planet.
If you want to talk real world, have you ever seen a large SUV rolled over? As often as not the roof over the driver’s seat is crushed to the top of the doors. Next time you sit in an SUV look at the where the top of the door is, and how much of your body is above it. Then ask yourself a question: If this boat rolls over, where is that part of my body going to go? :eek:
As far as the IIHS test not being real world, because they use a stationary barrier, last time I checked, bridge abutments, and highway barriers are stationary, and vehicles do hit them.
Ever seen a car hit a bridge abutment? I have and it makes an IIHS test look like a walk in the park. If anything these tests under simulate what happens in such an accident.
But these tests are consistent, and provide a basis of comparison.
Absolutely. I’m not the first person to link to this on these boards.
The speed limiter was pushed to 90 MPH on US versions.
Edit to opine: I have no idea, however, why such a crazy thing was done. Why would anyone want to go 90 in a Smart?
I was watching a show out of the UK called ‘Top Gear’ where they did a test of this car on their track. Turning the wheel under spirited driving resulted in the car continuing to travel in its original direction (and howls of laughter from the presenters). While it is probably a great demonstration for a physics class on the effects of inertia, it isn’t the sort of thing you’d want from a car. When you turn the wheel the car should turn, or at least make an attempt to do so.