[trooplewis]

I'ma gonna just leave this one alone...

 

[Mister_smart_LA]

Sorry Trooplewis, but quoting somebody else's driving results won't get the job done. Their results are based on their driving skill with the car, and clearly, whoever wrote the article doesn't know how to drive the car well.

It ain't making ICE owners ecstatic, but here is what AutoWeek said about the ED version

"
What's it like to drive?
The internally combusting Fortwo's powertrain is hobbled by a gearbox widely regarded as one of the most soul-destroying pieces of power-transmission equipment ever installed in a motor vehicle. And for such a tiny, tiny thing, the mileage isn't all that stellar. The cavernous-by-comparison Prius v will ace the gas Smart's EPA numbers under real-world conditions. A TDI Volkswagen will, too. And those are all like, real cars, with nice manuals or snot-slick twin-clutch transmissions.
Look beyond the techy fuel-miser class and even conventional four-place gasoline-powered models feature matching EPA numbers. But the Smart ED? It's really what this little car was born to be in the first place. Daimler designed it from the outset to accept either a fuel-burning or electric powertrain, so the battery isn't wedged in somewhere the engineers could find space. Like the Tesla Model S, the Fortwo carries its cells under your feet, keeping the center of gravity low.
That, combined with rear-wheel drive and a short wheelbase makes for a surprisingly compelling cornering experience.
Power proved absolutely adequate in the cut-and-thrust of San Francisco traffic. While the 11.5-second 0-60 time won't burnish any Don Garlits dreams, acceleration is rapid enough to avoid catastrophe -- pretty much all 96 lb-ft of torque are available whenever you need them.
Honestly, the only real gripe I had was with the pedal positioning and feel. Something about it led to a tired ankle after about 30 minutes in city traffic."


Smart Fortwo Electric Drive drive review - Autoweek

​

 

[trooplewis]

That may very well be true. I am totally open minded about the gas version, just never been a fan of that transmission, or the BMW SMG series trannys. The M-Cars rock, but the SMG in "auto" mode did not make the drive as fun as it should have been.

 

[Mister_smart_LA]

That may very well be true. I am totally open minded about the gas version, bring on the quotes from other recognized automobile authorities.

I've driven the gas version on several occasions, even considered leasing one on the $99/month program. I didn't care for it for the same reason I don't care for BMW's SMG transmissions. Doesn't make it bad if you like those, just not my cup of tea.

True, but what you just said is an honest and fair opinion. You don't like the transmission because you just don't like it. You don't need to justify what you do or don't like just as you can have a preference for yellow over blue or red over green.

But this garbage about the car being "hobbled" or the transmission being "soul-destroying" is lunacy and ignorant hogwash. People forming such a strong opinion about something they obviously lack either the patience, skill, or understanding of how to use properly should excuse themselves from the automotive business.

I'd be beating a dead horse to get into the list of the advantages of the smart car transmission, I've posted them countless times throughout this forum so unless you want me to I'll spare everybody the repetition.

I'm not concerned what other automotive professionals have to say because they aren't sitting in the driver's seat with me. I get the results I do because I drive it a certain way. They get the results they do because they drive it their way. If they drive it the way I do, they have no reason to complain. If they drive it the way they do, they will complain.

Their opinions make it impossible to enjoy a 3-cylinder gas car at an affordable price. Anything other than 4 cylinders is unacceptable to the average car critic even though they don't say it that way. There's no technology that exists at a reasonable price that will make a naturally aspirated 3-cylinder car satisfy a car critic. They have mocked every single one of them I've ever seen hit the road.

 

[Miss Mercedes]

But by the time you hit redline in 1st gear, the smart EV is already up to 60!

Impossible. The ED is only a second faster to 60 than the petrol model.

IMHO - The petrol car's transmission rocks. Sure, it isn't perfect, but I'd rather have it than a slushbox or worse...a stupid CVT!!

 

[Mister_smart_LA]

Impossible. The ED is only a second faster to 60 than the petrol model.

That's what the spec sheet says. I'm confident that if they were put on a test track, the EV is capable of far better. The issue with the EV is that its max boost will not always function at full capacity so they cannot over-promise and under-deliver. I'm HIGHLY confident the EV is more than a full second faster to 60. During ideal situations, I'm suggesting the smart EV is much faster in pure straight line acceleration.

Somebody is going to have to test a fully charged smart EV on a track to prove it.

 

[Miss Mercedes]

You know, I think you may believe in the same theory I do.

I've been theorising that if the petrol model did not have the almost second pause between shifts, it would probably be a sub 10 second car.

The ED is definitely faster. I drove one and it had brutal acceleration even with another person in the car. I mean, I don't think it'll blow the petrol out of the water (petrol as that higher top speed and stuff) but the ED is definitely faster at a sprint.

Just don't know about 60 before a petrol's first gear redline. Maybe like in the middle of second gear?

 

[Putty]

I don't think my EV handles good at all when compared to the ICE cars I've owned over the years. It handles as good as I'd expect a car of this design to handle. I have no intentions of doing slaloms or taking hairpin turns, though I have pushed it a few times.

It is a capable car and I'm satisfied with it's performance.

There is a Youtube video I saw of a professional driver taking an EV on the slalom course and he completely goes off the track. It has a lot of understeer. Nothing wrong with that, I don't think the designers set out to make a sports car with this. What it was designed for it does extremely well.

Here's a hilarious video from the 2011 model:

 

[Miss Mercedes]

The 2011 model is a complete embarrassment for smart. That thing had no range, no power, and no top speed (61mph? For real smart?)

0-60 in 22 seconds is Tata Nano territory.

Glad they straightened up their act for the new 2013s.

 

[Putty]

and they were charging $599 a month just last year to lease these? I wonder what Smart will do for these early adopters. It's kind of punishing to be first, but you gotta admit if not for them, we may not have this 3rd generation.

 

[Woody14619]

I love both my smarts, a 2008 ICE and a 2013 ED. I have to say, the ride in the 2013 is smoother, but that's a given based on the age and type of car. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but in the end they're both great cars. I'll keep both until they're not profitable to keep (which will be a long while yet, even for the 08).

As for the smart ICE not getting reasonable mileage for it's lack of size, show me another car that gets close to it that doesn't cost twice as much, or have half the crash test rating that the smart has... Didn't think so. >

 

[Raygun]

But by the time you hit redline in 1st gear, the smart EV is already up to 60!

And by the time the hard accelerated EV hits 60 miles and runs out of juice, I will be at 80 with another 220 miles to go.

Tale of the Turtle and the Hare, slow and steady wins the race.

 

[Miss Mercedes]

and they were charging $599 a month just last year to lease these? I wonder what Smart will do for these early adopters. It's kind of punishing to be first, but you gotta admit if not for them, we may not have this 3rd generation.

There were really no early adopters to speak of.
Nobody leased them, so smart decided to sell them. How much? Oh, just $45,000 or $47,000 for the cabriolet.

And that's for an EV that couldn't even reach the highway speed limit for most states and struggled to achieve even 55 miles range.

And at full throttle? You could literally drain the battery in 20 or so miles...bloody awful...

And by the time the hard accelerated EV hits 60 miles and runs out of juice, I will be at 80 with another 220 miles to go.

Tale of the Turtle and the Hare, slow and steady wins the race.

You only get 300 miles on a tank? That would make me sad...

 

[Raygun]

You only get 300 miles on a tank? That would make me sad...

If you saw how I drive, you would think 300 is impressive for 8 gallons.
Let me put it this way. I am first off the line 95% of the time. I also rarely get passed on the freeway.

 

[Miss Mercedes]

Oh, in that case, carry on!

300 miles for me is a baaaaaad tank. Now as my engine is consuming more fuel than it ever has (and destroying my precious averages ) I'm just breaking 300 on a tank. I used to do 380+ miles and at the height of my hypermiling (right before Winter) I was doing 400+ on each tank.

 

[MB DNA]

I wonder what Smart will do for these early adopters.

While the financial details and lease specifics are unknown, Gen II early adopters were "upgraded" to Gen III with the roll out last year.