No Cruise. No adj. wheel. No armrest...

[BradWaite]

You people who say people shouldn't want these features sound SO sanctimonious. Who are YOU to say how I should drive my car and what features I should have on it?

The "need" for CC, armrests & adjustable seat height is a preference. But no more a preference than say, the COLOR. I mean, why did they even release the fortwo in anything other than black on black?

Oh, y'mean because people LIKE to be able to choose the color of their car? Maybe people would LIKE to choose whether their fortwo has CC, armrests & adjustable seat height!

Yes, these currently aren't options - but they should be. For those that don't want 'em, they don't have to get 'em. For those that do, well, they can.

[NCC1701]

Originally Posted by msjohnson1974

Then either don't get a smart or buy an aftermarket cruise control... easy solution.

Easy solution for a person with unlimited funds. When I bought a Neon in 1994, it didn't have factory installed cruise control. I made my desires known and the unit was handed to me in a box. I then paid a pro to install it. Total cost maybe $150. That's something like one third of what the fortwo aftermarket units are supposedly going to cost ... WHEN they're available. Sadly, my income hasn't tripled since 1994.

I only said I would be satisfied paying a little more for the option, an option I firmly believe should be available. AND, to cruise or not to cruise was only ONE of MANY factors weighed ... OF COURSE! Your glib response underwhelms me.

[rwjrn]

I realized going into this purchase that this wasn't a luxury car I was buying. I bought it because it is unique and gets decent gas mileage for my 90 miles per day commute. I get what the car is about. That doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate cruise control. It's nice to be able to give your leg a position change and we all have experienced the ridiculously low speed limit areas where the cops love to hang out and issue speeding citations all day long. Sometimes cruise control is vital since a steady 30mph can be difficult to maintain when you want to drive a more reasonable speed. It's strange that a company wants to be so minimalist when there are plenty of people willing to spend for what they want. I'm sure once the car is more popular there will be plenty of aftermarket companies willing to put forth the effort. Most car companies want to put forth the effort to begin with so they can keep the profits.

[MPrice2984]

Even though I have stated earlier that I think cruise, etc. really aren't of much use in the ForTwo I do understand some peoples desire to have them. The For Two is designed to be minimalist at best. The cost to design an optional adjustable steering column would probably add a million dollars to the development cost of the car plus the roughly 2 million cost of US certification for each version of a car. My point is that every change that the manufacturer makes adds to the development cost of every car produced, including those that aren't equipped with the options. If they were going to have something different to offer I would much rather have a diesel option.

[msjohnson1974]

Originally Posted by ncc1701

Easy solution for a person with unlimited funds. When I bought a Neon in 1994, it didn't have factory installed cruise control. I made my desires known and the unit was handed to me in a box. I then paid a pro to install it. Total cost maybe $150. That's something like one third of what the fortwo aftermarket units are supposedly going to cost ... WHEN they're available. Sadly, my income hasn't tripled since 1994.

I only said I would be satisfied paying a little more for the option, an option I firmly believe should be available. AND, to cruise or not to cruise was only ONE of MANY factors weighed ... OF COURSE! Your glib response underwhelms me.

All I'm trying to point out is that if people do not like the offering they don't have to buy it or they can modify it to meet their needs. The complaint threads about 'deficiencies' in the car mirror those of the impatience in the reservation process. Its a car, a means of transportation, and by no means the only one on the planet. If the lack of an option is going to cause this much pain to someone they should not buy the car. I don't miss the cruise control, I do want a better stereo (not saying the car is perfect) - but what kind of stereo should I expect in a car with an $11K base price? Put into perspective of the car's price vs. the standard safety features (brake assist, stability control, hill brake control, airbags) and that for 13K the Passion is pretty well equiped - I'm just not going to complain about what's not there and ENJOY my car.

[bobhodgen]

I'd rather have stability control, antilock brakes, and a safety cell than cruise control. It's a matter of priorities and a low price-point in a vehicle designed for an urban environment.

[rawlus®]

if the US dollar wasn't so damn weak right now, i'd imagine we'd be seeing a slightly different offering from smart - as least in the way of the warranty, which i believe it largely impacted by the weak dollar vs. euro thing.
and i generally agree with the earlier poster who mentioned that engineering costs for options impact the base price of all the vehicles, not just the cost of the option itself.

[RVGRINGO]

If you weren't happy with the Smart, as offered, why did you buy it?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Offering options is expensive and would make a basic Smart, without options, a bit more expensive too.
I understand that you have the choice of Pulse, Passion or Convertible. I have never heard of anyone on the Mexican Smart Club forum even mention cruise control and we have wonderful superhighways that you can cruise at top speed with little or no traffic because of the high tolls (which include full insurance, towing, medical, etc. by the way).
I drove our 2007 Passion on a 5000 mile round trip and never found myself wanting CC or anything more than came with the car.
Enjoy; be happy! You have a Smart and are the envy of many.

[NCC1701]

Originally Posted by bobhodgen

I'd rather have stability control, antilock brakes, and a safety cell than cruise control. It's a matter of priorities and a low price-point in a vehicle designed for an urban environment.

I was unaware that the inclusion of cruise control would negate stability control, ABS and a safety cell. My bad.

As rawlus® pointed out, a better warranty would also be great. Dayum, the standard warranty sucks.

And, RVGRINGO ... the old saying you used was discussed at breaktime today where I work. "Want your cake and to eat it too." Could someone pleeaasssee explain that one? I mean, would I want cake just to watch it grow moldy? Heck yes I want to eat my cake. It's a bizarre expression.

[skoolrn]

Originally Posted by bottlerocket

It's only a correction if you think it's a deficiency. I don't need any of those three so I don't think they're deficiencies.

A want for me, and I call it a "want" because it's not a deficiency,
is radio controls on the steering wheel. Would have been nice to have, since you need to keep your hands on the wheel most of the time.

I have to agree! That is one thing I noticed missing from the "perks" list. I have steering wheel radio controls now in my Mazda and always use them, so much so I think I have only actually touched the in-dash radio about 5 times in 5 years. This is a feature that, I think, can and should be included in safety features since it does not cause distraction from the road to control the radio.