Smart Car of America Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
By CarTalk no less:


" I have to say that in my opinion, this car has been the opposite of Smart. We find it unsafe, uncomfortable, unreliable and, worst of all, mediocre on fuel economy. What exactly is the advantage of driving one of these things? That three-hour buckboard joy ride to the nearest dealership?

OK, some people say parking is easy. Sure. If you live in downtown Rome, I can see why you'd want a car with a tiny footprint. But in the Youuu-nited States? You could buy a Prius C, a Ford Fiesta or a Honda Fit and get room for four, cargo space and the same or better mileage in a real car."


https://shar.es/1dwH7F
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,573 Posts
I have a Fiesta and if there is a worse new car available, I would be interested to hear what it is.

Poor opinions of smart are a badge of honour. Wear them proudly.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
"Professional" (?)

"Car experts" (?)

"Critics" (?)

ALL expose themselves as IGNORANT CLOWNS who know very little about the vehicles, products, engines, they are criticizing, while also exposing themselves are being completely reliant on true car experts (automobile engineers) to spoon feed them with everything they think they know.

They're back for Round 2 of this nonsense.

I don't care if it's CarTalk, Consumer Reports, or any other publication, journalist, critic, or "expert" who spends time heavily criticizing a smart car.

These cars are designed with 1.0L 3-cylinder engines. If they couldn't handle the 70hp/68 lbs-ft of torque in the 451, it's because they are drivers who require a large and thirsty engine. They can't handle 1.0L. I still haven't found a reasonably priced 999cc, naturally aspirated 3-cylinder engine in America (mass produced) that developed more power than the 451 smart.

So when "car experts" criticize the premium fuel --- DUH! That's one of the reasons it has the most power and separates itself from the pack of other 1.0L 3-bangers out there.

But then the same "car experts" then start emphasizing 0 to 60 times. Well, then they should understand that an automated-manual transmission allows the same efficiency as a true stick-shift transmission, which is more efficient than the automatic transmissions and the CVT transmissions, which means there isn't a transmission technology at a reasonable price point that is a better choice. But that goes RIGHT OVER their heads.

They quite simply do not deserve to drive a 1.0L 3-cylinder car.

And as such, they'll continue to expose their baffoonery by continually comparing 4 cylinder engines to the 3 cylinder engines in a smart car.

I can go on and on but I should probably save that for a later rant when I'm in a better mood to tolerate it. :nerd:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
It was designed for, and is continually advertised as, a city car. Outside the city it works, of course, but is surpassed by every other car in ride quality, acceleration, and cargo capacity. I like my smart a lot, but facts are facts.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top