Shoot to the Heart by Cars.Com

[SNAPHU]

Seem we keep making everyone’s list, good and bad.

"The pint-sized ForTwo sacrifices a lot of passenger space for a relatively unimpressive 41 mpg on the highway, has an SUV-like propensity to roll over, and is equipped with an aggravating sequential manual transmission. Sure, the ForTwo looks cute, but after you drive it you won't be smiling anymore. "

[Black-ohio-brabus]

I love them still

[sunnyokanagan]

Propensity to roll over? Talking out his azz for sure. <sigh> Ignore the ignorant!

[vwW12]

Originally Posted by SNAPHU

"SUV-like propensity to roll over"

[CMPVEGAS]

My 2009 VW Tiguan is like a Bentley compared to my Smart car yet I love driving the Smart to work. The Smart is the best city transportation car for 1 - 2 passengers at the msrp made. My Tiguan gets 18 mpg around town my Smart has been getting 38 city. Is this guy clueless as to the roll the Smart car plays in the world? Find a car that is is fun to drive and gets 38 mpg for the price I paid, $11,999 with AC, there is none. Now is the Smart smart when you let a dealer add a bunch of extras and you pay over 20 K for a convertible? Maybe not. The Smart car has so much personality but you need to have one to see it, this guy must not have one.

[John_H]

Originally Posted by SNAPHU

The pint-sized ForTwo sacrifices a lot of passenger space

What?!?! Did the reviewer even sit in a smart?

Some comments make absolutely no sense whatsoever and throw anything else the person may say in a dubious light.

_____


Added: If one clicked on the Worst Cars of the 2000s list #1 car - the Smart - the first item listed in the "What We Like" category is "Unexpectedly roomy interior."

Which end of the digestive tract were the authors of the "10 worst" talking with?!

[roetcr01]

I still smile every time i drive my smart.

[John_H]

Just sent through the cars.com "contact us" not that I expect it will do much good:

Cars.com is done a great disservice not just by offering "opinion" in articles like the "Worst Cars of the 2000s" but by contradicting information already provided on the site. The #1 worst car on the list - the smart ForTwo - has the complaint in the article that "The pint-sized ForTwo sacrifices a lot of passenger space" yet the 1st item in the list of "What We Like" if one clicks on the "Smart ForTwo" link in the article is "Unexpectedly Roomy Interior." Conflicting information.

Also mentioned was "an SUV-like propensity to roll over" whereas the smart is equipped with ESP (Electronic Stability Program) as standard and has smaller wheels on the front designed specifically for understeer. Is the author thinking back to the early years of the previous model in Europe? I would sincerely appreciate a reference.

It appears the authors have no interest in communicating objective information but - for reasons unknown - personally don't like the car I own and confidently trust with my life and choose to display this personal bias without apparent factual basis. It's items like this that *severely* lower the credibility of Cars.com.

[Big Panda]

You go John!!!

[gstreetcomic]

If you read that list very carefully there are three GM products that made the ten worst list, and frankly the Aztek should have been on the top of the heap. Now the Toyota Echo, now that is really a funky little car.