Car-Man, If you ever take another test drive of the Smart, check the tire pressure, as when I picked mine up a couple of weeks ago, the first thing I did was bring my own tire gauge and checked the pressure at the dealer.
Actually I don't plan to test drive one again anytime in the near future. I have been studying the design for a few weeks and I have several major problems with its design.
Problem one: High center of gravity.
The placement of the engine requires the seats to be razed up a little. A larger driver like me only make this problem even worse as I weigh almost as much as the engine (i'm 284lbs).
Problem two: Short wheel base.
The wheel base is only a foot longer than the vehicles height. If it had the same low end torque that as my prototype it would have a problem keeping its front feet on the ground. Also, during heavy braking its rear wheels will be rather limited in their assistance stopping the vehicle. I noticed an apparent lack of performance stats on the smartusa.com website. They list a large number of technical specification including max speed and 0-60, but not the truly important ones like 60-0 braking distance, road hold, crash test rating. This leads me to believe that they don't want you to see them.
Problem three: Pore Fuel Economy.
For a car of its size, weight, and passenger capacity, 33/41 mpg is terrible. My prototype seats four, its 136 lbs heavier, has equal cargo space, and even with all four seats filled it gets close to twice the millage. The 4two revs up pretty high before it starts to move. Each time the cylinder fires it burns the same amount of fuel, and the more often it must fire (I.E. 68 lb ft @ 4500 rpms) to move the car, the more gas it waists. The lower the engine has to rev to get good torque the better its mpg will be.
Actually I don't plan to test drive one again anytime in the near future. I have been studying the design for a few weeks and I have several major problems with its design.
Problem one: High center of gravity.
The placement of the engine requires the seats to be razed up a little. A larger driver like me only make this problem even worse as I weigh almost as much as the engine (i'm 284lbs).
Problem two: Short wheel base.
The wheel base is only a foot longer than the vehicles height. If it had the same low end torque that as my prototype it would have a problem keeping its front feet on the ground. Also, during heavy braking its rear wheels will be rather limited in their assistance stopping the vehicle. I noticed an apparent lack of performance stats on the smartusa.com website. They list a large number of technical specification including max speed and 0-60, but not the truly important ones like 60-0 braking distance, road hold, crash test rating. This leads me to believe that they don't want you to see them.
Problem three: Pore Fuel Economy.
For a car of its size, weight, and passenger capacity, 33/41 mpg is terrible. My prototype seats four, its 136 lbs heavier, has equal cargo space, and even with all four seats filled it gets close to twice the millage. The 4two revs up pretty high before it starts to move. Each time the cylinder fires it burns the same amount of fuel, and the more often it must fire (I.E. 68 lb ft @ 4500 rpms) to move the car, the more gas it waists. The lower the engine has to rev to get good torque the better its mpg will be.
With all due respect, the fortwo is the lowest cost car to insure in Germany, partially due to the lowest crash rate and lowest fatality rate of any vehicle sold there.
We all know that Daimler has a reputation for making unsafe cars that are just horrible for the environment...
Do me a favor and hop out to Toyota.com, Honda.com, Chevrolet.com and get me the 60-0 braking distance of any of their products.
Also, the smart site has not had a significant revision since the crash test results came out.
My 2.2 liter 4 cylinder in my VUE makes 155 lb/ft TQ at 4100 RPM... nothing out of the ordinary with the smart there. Mind you, we are talking about an OHC engine versus an OHV engine or diesel. Show me an OHC engine that makes it torque down low, and I will show you that the same OHC engine has no gusto at highway speeds...
Be careful... you seem to be nearing trollville...
Last edited by mdfortwoguy; 05-11-2008 at 09:24 PM.
Its so sad that people feel they have to defend that which needs no defense. When some one expresses there opinion about a product, it no excuse to call them a troll.
Other than Family and Country, If you have to defend it, its not worth defending. If its value is not plain to see, its worthless.
As for smart safety numbers...
I requested that information from Smart and they replied "That information is not available for public release at this time..."
If you request it from Any other auto maker they will send you a complete Fact Sheet no questions asked.
4two in review...
I have yet to read a favorable review of the 4two from any objective source. Though I haven't read any denouncements either. I also hear the same thing over and over. "its a great in city runabout, but its a bit small for the freeway" and "For a car of its size and weight its gas mileage could be better."
In my opinion...
If you love this car because you believe its more morally correct, you have lost sight of reality. If you love this car because its cute, its funky, its easy to park, and it get 33mpg, then your on the same page as me.
I'm not buying one because...
I have a 07 Yaris. With just a few easy upgrades, I get just as good mileage, averaging about 35 mpg city. All I did was change my spark plugs to Pulstar Pulse Plugs, replace the air filter to a less restrictive filter, and change out the muffler to a less restrictive muffler. Those three things anyone can do, and it netted me an extra 6 mpg, even with my sloppy driving habits.
I'm sure you would get the same if not better results if you did the same with your 4two.
Last edited by Car-man; 05-13-2008 at 06:29 PM.
Reason: found one typo...
With all due respect, the fortwo is the lowest cost car to insure in Germany, partially due to the lowest crash rate and lowest fatality rate of any vehicle sold there.
Interesting. Looks like the Golf is the cheapest car to insure in Germany, not the Smart. Not sure that lowest crash or fatality rate has anything to do with it, but they appear to be safe and quite cheap to repair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdfortwoguy
We all know that Daimler has a reputation for making unsafe cars that are just horrible for the environment...
Mercedes does make a pretty safe car. So does Volvo, Ford, Saab and a host of other manufacturers. They also make cars that get poor mileage, and that's been known to be 'just horrible for the environment' according to the greenies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdfortwoguy
Do me a favor and hop out to Toyota.com, Honda.com, Chevrolet.com and get me the 60-0 braking distance of any of their products.
Got it for ya: Toyota: 60-0 123 ft., Honda: 60-0 113 ft., Chevrolet: 107 ft.
Hope that helps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdfortwoguy
Also, the smart site has not had a significant revision since the crash test results came out.
Probably because most websites don't update as often as forums do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdfortwoguy
My 2.2 liter 4 cylinder in my VUE makes 155 lb/ft TQ at 4100 RPM... nothing out of the ordinary with the smart there. Mind you, we are talking about an OHC engine versus an OHV engine or diesel. Show me an OHC engine that makes it torque down low, and I will show you that the same OHC engine has no gusto at highway speeds...
Hmm. Seems like it might be a challenge, but, alas, no: Ford makes a OHC engine that makes a goodly amount of torque down low, and also seems to have quite a bit of gusto at highway speeds. Heck, Saleen uses the engine in their S281. Supercharged, the engine appears in the S331.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdfortwoguy
Be careful... you seem to be nearing trollville...
In true panic stopping, as much as 90% of the stopping force comes from the front tires. Why do you think the smart takes more space? Put some rubber under it and it will stop much more quickly.
As much as 90% of the braking effort can come from the front tires in true panic level stopping. If you look at the factory front tires you can see why it needs some extra room. Put some rubber under the car and it will stop more quickly.
In true panic stopping, as much as 90% of the stopping force comes from the front tires. Why do you think the smart takes more space? Put some rubber under it and it will stop much more quickly.
That number seems a bit high; the most I've heard of has been between 75-80% of the braking in a panic stop is done by the front brakes.
I could be mistaken, as I've only had a few hundred hours of auto & motorcycle racing schools, defensive, and - err - "other" types of driving schools (if anyone needs me to drive a limo, town car, Crown Vic, Suburban or Tahoe backwards really fast, just drop me a line...).
I'm not sure that increasing the tire footprint of the Smart would necessarily make it slow down any faster, though; at 60 MPH you're traveling a bit over 80 feet per second, so stopping in 130 feet is going to take only a couple of seconds. With ABS, inertia and mass, I think you're already pushing the envelope of stopping distance.
Your pal,
Meat.
P.S. I was going to respond to your post two more times ... but, well, yknow. It's only funny once.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Today
Linear Mode
