Overall you make an excellent and accurate analysis of us.I have believed for at least 30 years that if the government had large enough b#*ls we would have had taxes on gas that could have gone a long way towards viable public transportation. We have a number of areas in this country for example that are prime candidates for high speed rail such as the TGV. Who knows how urban sprawl might have been slowed or altered if we had better rail and/or underground systems.

 

Hi Bremer Speck. I agree with you. I'm disappointed by general quick dismissal reactions from people when they see my new car. I would be happy with jovial laughter and "well, I don't think it's for me, but it's neat!" A guy I work with, when he first learned that I was waiting for one of these, couldn't stop warning me of its size and impending doom it meant to my well-being. Then he started reading the articles on it... then he saw mine and I gave him a ride... He really likes it now! It just takes all of these lesser-open-minded Americans finding someone they look up to or trust that believes in something new to change their perception. Easier said than done, for sure. But, if we all give up on everyone else, and simply think that there's no way we can help inform people and assume that other people will never get it, then we're right... they never will. People will only expect out of themselves what people around them expect of them.

 

I most likely agree with you, however without any paragraph breaks I can't read it

 

Oh, silly SmartAzz...

 

I agree to disagree

I understand the point of your post but must point out what I think the problem is.

The American auto industry is not shoving anything down anyones throught.

We and when I say we I mean the American consumers are driving the industry. The big cars and trucks would not be built or sold if we were not buying them, we the conumer drive the market not the other way around.

People buy what people want, in europe they want small cars that are very fuel efficiant, because of the reasons you stated in you previous post.

Even before the smart there were and still are small car options for us to purchase. But we chose to buy the big comfrtable gas guzzelers.

We are now starting to feel the pain and are now looking for alternatives.

I personaly own one of the gas guzzelers, a Ford F250 with a 6.8l V10. It gets around 11 MPG. It servers it poupous very well, that is to tow our travel trailer. It is not a very good choice for a everyday commuter.

We are about to take delevery of our new smart, and it will preform the task for which it is intended very well, however it will not tow our trailer at all. The smart is a very pourpous built and designed car, and acomplishes its task very well.

Time will tell if the American public is ready for it or not. I for one am.

 

MR Claudia, thanks for responding. I do not agree with you (oh, I love a good argument... ... I seriously doubt it is the consumer who is driving the industry. That is what Detroit says and wants us to believe (most recently put force in an interview with Bob Lutz), that they are the good guys and would build small, fuel efficient cars, if only the buyers would want them. IMHO, it is brain-washing through ADVERTISING! How do most consumers find out about new cars? Most of us through advertising and possibly a write-up in a car or other magazine. That is how I found out about the VW EOS and I have lusted after it for 2 years, until my lease ended and I was able to buy the EOS in January. The Smart is my wife's car.
I also do admit to owning a big F250 Diesel truck. We used it to commute 75 miles every day. We no longer do. It has turned into a 3rd car, to be used when there is a need for it. If you live outside the city, a pickup truck comes in very handy.

 

You are correct. It's the manufacturer that are the driving force behind what we buy. Sure it's our money and it's up to us what we buy but if you look at the ads, especially on football Sunday, what do you see? Big burley men driving through construction sites with their brand new F350, Big Hummers going through the desert, Jeep Grand Cherokee ripping through the woods doing some hard core 4x4. ect. Are any of those 'real life' scenarios? No.

 

(snip) General Motors? You will end-up being a division of Toyota. You deserve it.

But does Toyota deserve it? I don't think they are interested in assuming the mantle for all those UAW workers.

 

The review I saw that bothered me basically said it didn't compare to other vehicles, and then trashed the transmission because it didn't. I can't find the link for it, but there were 2 articles on the same source, one fairly favorable (he seemed to "get it"), but his partner's very negative. I thought they were on MSN, but can't find them again to quote them.

Well, the point for me is that I don't want it to compare to other cars, otherwise I would have kept the minivan and the SLK.

I wanted, craved something unique and unusual, something with "wow" factor. I could have moved up from my SLK to a CLK, but, while they are a beautiful car, the CLK looks like an awful lot like everything else on the road.

For the Smart to be practical, too, is just a lagniappe for me.

As for the reviewer trashing the way the car runs, did he drive the same model as I did? I think the shift paddles are brilliant. I drove the car fifty yards in automatic mode, said "ew yuck", and never looked back. It's paddles for me, baby, and I love 'em. He talked about them being jerky and inconvenient. Huh? He ranted about how it chugged slowing down at stops. Huh? How the upshift arrows were set wrong, blah blah, blah blah.

Well, I'm sorry if I'm huffy and unable to express myself properly about cars, but I'm a chick, I like cars, don't know that much about them, just what I like, but I was taught as a ten year old to drive a stick by feel and sound. If a professional reviewer, who is also, presumably a professional driver, can't get the same results out of the little car as I feel like I do, then give me his job. (Besides, I might get to meet Clarkson, May, and Hammond some day. Talk about 'yer lagniappes!!!!!! Sorry, an utterly chick response there. )

I figured out within the first mile or two to ignore the arrows, which are simply suggestions, imho. If silly little ole' me can figure that out, why can't the big bad reviewer? (*bats eyelids dangerously*)

By the time I got home from the dealer, I'd figured out that shifting UP when approaching a stop was the trick to the car, versus shifting down. The reviewer even said that the dealer had even mentioned this, but thought it was bad advice, and went on the complain about it jerking as he downshifted. Well, DUH!

Here's a car with some imagination and creativity, but he harps on it not running or driving compared to other cars.

I guess my point is, if everything's the same, and anything new is compared to everything else unfavorably simply because it is new, then what a dull dull world it will be.

I mean we're not talking Galileo and the Inquisition here, but for heaven's sake.... accept that things change and review it with an open mind. I guess I'm one of the "rabid" fans one reviewer so dismissively mentions, but I love my little car, and I can tell early on if a car "loves me back". The Yellow Peril does!!!!!

 

Once you have gotten some miles....



on your car, you will feel more comfortable with the automatic mode.

I had the exact same feeling about manual vs automatic mode and after breaking the car in mostly in the manual mode (so as not to lug the engine) I began to use the auto mode once in awhile and I found the it was much more user friendly once it learned my driving style or so it would seem. so now I switch back and forth from manual (using the stick) to auto and find total satisfaction with both modes in most situations.
It really is a phenomenal transmission if you think about how it will automatically shift down to 1st whenever you come to a stop in either the manual or the automatic mode. you can't stall the car out, either, like sometimes happens with a true clutch manual.

I really admire the way it operates now that it is broken in somewhat.

John

 

My issue with large vehicles lies in the fact that most people aren’t actually using them for their largeness. I live in Florida and it is very common for people to drive SUVs and trucks, as it sounds much of America is like this. I would say around 90% (if not more) of the time I see a massive SUV or a truck there is only 1 passenger. The majority of the time I see trucks there is nothing they are hauling in the bed, honestly I cant ever remember the last time I saw something in the bed of someone’s truck. Trucks and SUVs surely have a purpose and I think it is a legitimate one, Trucks are great for pulling trailers and hauling loads of whatever and SUVs are great for hauling people, pulling trailers and hauling loads (minus the hummer which has neither lots of space for people or for hauling things), but I don’t think either are practical for day to day traffic. If you could only have 1 vehicle I think a trucks and SUVs are a waste of money and another hazard on the road. I am a firm believer that SUVs and trucks are making the roads less safe.

According to the US Census Bureau (2006), average family size is 3.14 [which includes parent(s)]. Even if the average family size was 4, you would still be able to haul your entire family in about anything other than a 2 passenger car like the smart. Truly though, most driving on a day to day basis from what I see peering into vehicles are people driving solo, with X amount of seats vacant. My thought has always been to drive a smaller/higher MPG car and when I need to haul things, rent a U-Haul or a truck. With all the money I would have saved in a year with a higher MPG car I would easily be able to justify the small amount is costs to rent a vehicle.

I think the real issue in our country is the lack of mass transportation other than road travel. I believe this is a lot to do with the way that American cities are so spread out from one another (but that’s another issue). smart may not be the most sound vehicle as a sole vehicle if you have children to haul around, but for a commuter car it is the direction our society needs to be headed. I am sick of this highway arms race; your low self esteem will not be fixed by driving the biggest vehicle you can find! I am off to buy a train and figure out how to put tires on it...Ill see you all on the road!

 

I think the real issue in our country is the lack of mass transportation

It's not quite that simple. Europe has great mass transport because of the way it developed. They went from small villages of serfs nestled against a local lord's (the landowner) castle to cities nestled against the remains of a castle. European population centers are pretty much binary - when you leave town, there's not much until the next town. Private land ownership is still pretty much a new thing. Mass transport works well in this environment. Couple that with crippling taxes on vehicles and fuel by the governments and the picture is pretty much complete.

America (North, mostly) is a study in sprawl with the norm being private land ownership. Cities developed as trade centers and the majority of people lived apart from them on farms. mass transport, which needs hubs to be efficient) didn't have the population density outside of cities for it to work efficiently, and personal transport became the norm. By the time motorized vehicles came along, they just replaced the horse.

For those that wave the Mass Transport flag - please note that Europe is slowly adopting our model. The convenience factor of travelling at will is not to be lightly discounted.

 

I ride a Buell, which for those of you not familiar with them it is an unholy marriage of a sportbike chassis with a Harley derived engine. It vibrates badly, doesn't have class leading power etc. The majority of the reviews are not favorable, but the bike is full of soul and I love it.

The smart is the same thing, you have to want to like it, if you can do that then you look at the flaws as "character" and you love the car. If you don't want to like the car, then there are no end of flaws you can focus on.

Ultimately the smart is not mainstream, so it is not surprising that the enthusiast magazines don't get it. It is not a car designed with their typical reader in mind.

 

Round Two

Ok Bremer Speck lets go at it

I dont think we are brain washed as much as we are comfortable with the norm and no one wants to be the first to try new things.

I to am from Germany , from your screen name I would guess you are from Bremen , I spent a lot of time working there several years ago. While there I had a MB A Class diesel. Why because I knew that a big car would be more of a pain than a pleasure.

Last fall we went to Octoberfest and visited relatives near Frankfort, the car we rented was a MB 220 C class, why because I knew that I would be driving more longer distances. Even then when we went into the city we took the train. Parking alone would have been two or three times the cost of the train.

We here in America have not yet felt the pain, we moan a groan about the high gas prices but still get into our big cars all alone and drive to and from work everyday.

Our whole mind set is that bigger is better, is this due to advertising , mabey but in the end I still feel we the consumer is the driving force of the industry.

 

Humans are amazingly rational creatures if given the chance.

Marketing is designed to derail our common sense and push us into a purchase that we probably don't want and almost certainly don't need.

We "want" big cars and trucks because that's what Detroit has been marketing to us for 80+ years. The automobile market is not being driven by consumers, it is being driven by marketing.

Why? Because if you make something bigger and better, you can charge more for it! It's an upgrade, right? Upgrades are worth more! Don't just keep up with the Jones, get something bigger and better!

Americans switched to SUVs not because they fit our lifestyles better, or because they're more practical, or because we need them to haul around all of our crap. Americans switched to SUVs because the profit margin on them is dramatically better than on cars, and so Detroit's marketing machine convinced us that we wanted them so that they could make more profit.

It's that simple.

 

Humans are amazingly rational creatures if given the chance.

Marketing is designed to derail our common sense and push us into a purchase that we probably don't want and almost certainly don't need.

We "want" big cars and trucks because that's what Detroit has been marketing to us for 80+ years. The automobile market is not being driven by consumers, it is being driven by marketing.

Why? Because if you make something bigger and better, you can charge more for it! It's an upgrade, right? Upgrades are worth more! Don't just keep up with the Jones, get something bigger and better!

Americans switched to SUVs not because they fit our lifestyles better, or because they're more practical, or because we need them to haul around all of our crap. Americans switched to SUVs because the profit margin on them is dramatically better than on cars, and so Detroit's marketing machine convinced us that we wanted them so that they could make more profit.

It's that simple.

And we Americans have a real penchant for conspicuous consumption and it doesn't get much more consipicuous than a Black Cadillac Escalade EXT, Lincoln Nav, Hummer, Yukon Denali etc. These drivers hate smarts. Priuses and the like because it shows them for what they really are.

 

I fell in love with the small cars on my first trip to Ireland many years ago. I so wanted a nissan micro mini.
Having seen the smart the last two trips to Germany made me really want a small car. I drive 75 miles a day and know that gas is going to go higher and higher.
The politcal debates in my state for mass transit are non-stop. The train and bus system in Europe is the best. We really think on our next trip to Germany we are going to rely totally on trains and the bus. It is a no brainer. I have always wanted a train going up and down the I-95 corridor for us. We can't get a light rail going from the beach to Orlando. So many people would use it.
I have been reading the articles and they are so biased. I got 41 mpg yesterday!!! I love the transmission. It is a pc of cake and getting on and off the freeway is getting easier and easier as my confidence level goes up. I have noticed the suv and big pick up trucks do like to mess with me. I laugh when I fill up next to those big gas hogs. I do not think the Smart is a fad.

 

DUplicate................

 

08 smart

I have had my smart for about 3 weeks, i like the car but if you get in any wind hang on, also i do not like how the car shifts gears, does anyone else.

 

You'll have to excuse the fact that I scipped reading most of the replies. I've lived in both worlds. I mean Germany and the US. We are all about power. Just look at our driving and racing culture. Our for the longest time substandard engines and security features are well documented. For the average american a small efficient vehicle looks like a deathtrap. People don't want to hear about a Suburban driver in ICU after a head-on collision with a Smart in Canada. Or a S class dummy with the engine is its lap after the same crash. Don't get me wrong, nothing makes my blood boil more then a '69 charger with the true 426 hemi. We simply get what we pay for. 18 grand for a huge mercury containing a 289 V8. As Gas prices go up our industry will slowly bring vehicles like the VW Polo or Lupo, 1,1 and 1,4 TDI engines.
Is almost every magazine putting down on the Smart. Of course. But I'm only one person with one opinion.

 

A simple answer to the thread question, no the smart isn't treated fairly by American car magazines. The cover and article in Car and Driver are some of the worst bias I've read.

The problem is the narrow experience of the new crop of auto journalist. The Mustang in '65 was sold as a fast car, zero to sixty in under 10 seconds. There were faster cars, but not by much. A 15 second 1/4-mile run was muscle car territory only. 12 mpg was common for a big-block, 16 mpg on small block cars.

My '96 euro-delivery BMW M3 was about 5.5 seconds 0 to 60, but I would get 32 mpg on road trips, and 24 mpg in town.

Now the writers gripe about 4.7 sec 0 to 60 in a BMW 135i. Fuel economy isn't as good as my M3, and it has 55 more twin-turbine horses.

Now these writers have blinders. It has to go faster! Forget economy, forget the planet, forget the purpose of a car.

The purpose of a car is so we can move farther to increase our value as a human resource in the market. But how fast do you need to go, and much thrust do we need?

Writers only consider what they know. Something unique, like an economical people mover isn't in their vocabulary. It's a typical human ignorant reaction, "it's different, and I may fear it, so I must kill it before it senses my fear.

Too bad this car is smart and in the end, the smartest will survive.

 

After reading the C&D article I was a little bummed. I think part of it is due to the fact that I've been telling everyone how much I love this car, how great it is, etc. and now they see an article like this and may be thinking I've been b.s.ing them.

But let's be fair. The automatic mode does take a bit of time getting used to and honestly it is not like any automatic I've ever driven. And also you would expect higher mpg for the sacrifice in space of the car and it's appearance. I personally am averaging 37 for a combination of city/freeway and am more than happy with it. Do I feel that there should be more mpg after owning it for a couple of months? Not at all, I feel this car has other attributes that make up for it. But I don't think you can get that impression until you've lived with the smart for a bit and a test drive or two might not be enough.

I am personally hoping that the blatantly minute size of the smart will call excessive attention to it and plant an idea in the U.S. consumer's mind that we can do something other than supersize. I think the smart might get more that its share of abuse because it does go against the grain. I'm just going to keep waving the smart flag, because (and I think most smart owners will agree with me here) that this car is more that just a novelty. Right now I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that this car, like the mini before it, will be around in the U.S. for many years to come. The smart is easily my favorite car that I've ever owned.

 

When a car is as far from the norm as the Smart is, and doesn't perform well on the conventional metrics, you've got to expect the reviews the Smart has been receiving.

I don't think the magazines have altered how they test or evaluate cars to ding the Smart. What they haven't done is created a second set of tests / way of evaluation for the Smart. And I personally wouldn't expect them to.

In any case, and not just this one, if the criteria and weights used to evaluate a vehicle are different from your own, then the magazine conclusions just don't apply to you. With any test, it's important to see what is being measured.

I've written on this general topic here:

Comparison tests, what are they good for?

 

NYT review

Article written by JOHN SCHWARTZ in the New-York Times about his new smart:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008...rssnyt&emc=rss

 

Not any more...

Article written by JOHN SCHWARTZ in the New-York Times about his new smart:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008...rssnyt&emc=rss

The link above has been superseded by this one

 

Thank you paul c: I didn't realize that the link I posted was for "members only"...

 

AutoWeek 4/21/08 magazine

"Special Earth Day Double Issue"
In thirty pages titled "the green issue" smart appears in one chart on page 37.
That's it! Nothing in any of the stories. Hmmm?

 

I have been defending my smart ever since i moved here in oct of '03. be it the one i had or the one i"m getting.

I'll try to repeat it here to see if people see it the same way.

If driven proberly, very laid back i mean, you can easily achieve very close to 50mpg. that said you get milage most motorcycle cruisers are getting. The big difference lies in the fact that i can heat my behind, stay dry, stay cool, listen to music AND be very save. + anyone can drive a car but it takes some extra skill to handle a smart. (although that can be a disadvantage also)

Bobby

PS: I can take all body panels, the dash, seats and carpet out of a 450 in under 60 minutes. Who can say that about any other car?

 

i've been defending MY smart and i don't even have it yet! i tell everyone that we've ordered one and most of the reaction i get is negative. "What are you thinking? You'll get KILLED in that thing!" or some other kind of derogatory remark.

i tell them the actual reasons why we ARE getting one and all i hear is "Don't be giving me a bunch of BS trying to justify your decision to buy that thing." EXCUSE ME.......it's MY purchase and MY money, thank you very much!

that's why i hang out here on this forum so much. at least i'm around others that can appreciate the decision to buy a smart.

 

Hang in there Jeepster55 - it's worth it! Like a lot of others have already said, it's the criteria used to arrive at your final evaluation that's important. That's where the critics have missed the boat. Who says that the sum total of a car can be defined as how fast it can get to 60, or that bigger is safer? Driving the smart is a unique, fun and may I add, 'safe' driving experience and one that keeps getting more rewarding on many levels as time goes by. With oil hitting $119.00 a barrel this morning, I expect many of those negative comments will sheepishly melt into, "Where can I get one?", sooner than you might think.

 

the free market handles everything best. the less government involvement, the better. once the price of gas here in the US got so stupidly high, people started reacting.

producers and buyers are shifting to even more economical cars. Smart will do great in this regard, just like all the hybrid cars and high-gas-mileage cars have been doing already.