Smart Car - Test Drive Report
 

I drove a Smart Car today! :D

It was a snappy little ride, I liked it.

I did not take any turns real fast, and no jackrabbit starts (okay maybe a little aggressive), but as a normal driver it was fine. Turns were not wobbly or tipsy; felt like a nibble small car, steering was light, I�d say right in between my Porsche and my Tracker.

It's a car, not a golf cart. You know it's not a golf cart because there is no room for golf clubs.

Full auto mode, worked just fine, although you never coast long in the car, as it will automatically down shift, but never abruptly.

When switching to manual paddle shifter mode I kept forgetting to shift when the arrow on the dash went on. The instructor said you can keep driving it that way but when in manual mode it just will not go any faster unless you shift. It�s a smart car, will not let you over rev and hurt the engine.

The lag in shifting was not annoying or even noticeable around the city blocks we drove. However on the closed street when driving back I had room to shift (speed shift/keeping on the gas) 1,2.........3 that last shift took forever, its no sports car - don't expect it to be.

The 1.1L European version is what I test-drove, the American version is supposed to have a larger engine and faster shifting.

The instructor said $14,000 including A/C and radio, but no dash dials those are extra. My car had the dash dials although I never looked at them, kept my eye on traffic and that stupid semi-invisible shift arrow. They need to add some color; black on gray does not work for me.

Someone had asked about towing, supposedly some will come with a hitch so cyclist can cantilever their bikes (and maybe town something bulky but light).

They had an engine running when I got in and an Anita Baker CD playing at low volume, plus the instructor�s walkie-talkie squawking loudly half the time. When I could hear the engine it sounded fine, don't know if they were intentionally masking it though.

If you get a chance, drive one.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Smart%20Car/

I'm legal:
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...t%20Car/S1.jpg

The car I drove:
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...t%20Car/S2.jpg

Line up:
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...t%20Car/S3.jpg

Line up 2:
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...t%20Car/S4.jpg

Buck:
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...t%20Car/S5.jpg

Other stuff at the Ann Arbor Art Fair:
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...t%20Car/S6.jpg

George, how do think that car will handle longer distance cruising on the highway?

Yup cool cars for city driving. I've rented them a few times in Europe. It's really all you need if your driving is mostly city driving.

The short wheelbase makes for an annoying ride on longer stretches though.

Is it a Diesel ?

I would like to see a crash test. Any info on that?

There's one here in Wichita. Watching it drive in the midst of trucks and SUVs.........that takes balls. Better than a motorcycle, but only slightly. For a dense urban area, I can see how it would make a lot of sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

What is that, a Men in Black watch? Wow, blast from the past....

While the car itself seems to hold up really well, I'm not sure the passengers would be as fortunate. The enormous G forces in the video posted above would probably turn a human's internal organs to mush.

A front crumple zone is a good thing.

$14,000? Way too low.

They are $18,000 minimum here, and our dollar is roughly at par right now. They are totally practical for a second car, but totally overpriced.

Try taking that car, and a passenger, then going grocery shopping for a family of four. Good luck, half the fuel consumption, but you have to make two trips to bring everything home. Try taking your son to a hockey game, with his equipment.

They need to be priced about one-half where they are now to be practical/economical. At current prices you are better off buying a Yaris or a (insert small cheap foreign car name here) and running that into the ground. At leasy you get a back seat.

I think cross winds, tractor trailers and SUV's blasting past you at 90 mph would make life hectic, but that's a guess. They said it can do 90 mph, so maybe you can blast by an SUV or two yourself.:D

It was a gas engine, they are not bringing in the Diesel to the USA. Big mistake as the larger engined US version gets only 40 mpg. The electric conversion by that 3rd party in California still seems like the best deal to me. I'd like to drive one of those if I had the chance.

If you are invovled in an accident, they will take you to the hospital to have it removed.

The "cage" is intact at 60 mph barrier crash, you can still open the doors unlike most Japanese cars at 35 mph. It's the lack of "crush zone" which you need to worry about. Just keep it off the highway and under 45 mph and you will do fine.

My co-worker has one as a commuter car, so he drives his on the highway daily. 70 mph is normal.

70 mph is normal?

Not in Michigan, I don't care what the posted speed limit is.

What's it like on the highway?

Re: Smart Car - Test Drive Report
 

it goes back to shifting quickly if you lift a little when/while shifting

+1 on the men in black comment :D

as for highway/speed/stability.... who is the person that missed the point that this was a CITY CAR not a hwy gran tourer???

either way, it keeps up w/ hwy traffic just fine unless you're comparing it to an amg s class

Re: Re: Smart Car - Test Drive Report
 

Really?

As the driver of two manual shift cars I was lifting off the gas for the shifts during most of the drive (old habit). It was not until the last part of the run where I tried "power shifting" and it sucked at it.

City car, even my Tracker is a city car with it's short wheelbase.

The "Smart Girl" was "snappy" too (or is that perky?), she liked the watch and my man bag.;)

This is real nice..............Brabus Smart.

http://www.tuningblogger.de/2006/03/brabus-black-star-101.html
http://www.tuningblogger.de/uploaded...Star_101_1.jpg
http://www.tuningblogger.de/uploaded...Star_101_2.jpg

Re: Re: Smart Car - Test Drive Report
 

LOL Dave! Lu asked me this question and I owe it to her to find out. :D

I saw quite a few on the autobahn in Germany, they seemed to be doing just fine. Drove one in Stuttgart, it was a fun drive.

They have one of the best protected passenger cells of any car on the market. They over-engineered this like crazy - anticipating the safety concerns.

It's a shame they are not bringing the diesel to the US. That's the motor to have.

Too bad we have all these laws that require expensive adaptions to the us market. I see one company in St. Louis that can get you into a Smart car for $26,000. That's insane.

Re: Re: Re: Smart Car - Test Drive Report
 

i only brought it up b/c in the original post you mentioned staying on the gas... w/o lifting. in my 2 brief days of driving one around (a brabus model :) ) i noticed it was reluctant to shift if you didn't get off the gas, no matter what driving style... it just won't do the 'video game/formula one' thang...

jim,
that's funny. btw, matt says 'thanks for the recommendation'

Doesn't matter. Less mass= higher fatality rate.

The laws of physics make no exceptions for trendy little shiit-boxes. If you get hit in this at a high rate of speed, you are at far, far greater risk than if you were in a car with just 500lbs more mass.

Fact.

I'm not sure what your degree is in or what college you went to, but I'll offer what I know and maybe we can figure this out.

A Mac truck weighing 10,000 lbs and a VW Beetle weighing 2,000 lbs crash head on.

Q1: Which vehicle experiences more force?

A1: They experience an equal amount of force.

F = MA?

Yes of course, that's Newton's second law.............the more mass, the more accelleration the more force there is........................right!

From the above, a lighter (less mass) vehicle will exert less force on a concrete wall than a heavier vehicle.

Now that the high school physics is out of the way, can we talk crush zones and rate of energy absorbed?

Gotta ask the right questions.;)

If they actually price them at 14K, that would be reasonable. But I've heard the number will be closer to 20K, and would expect a premium for the first few months before the novelty wears off. They can be had now on E-bay for mid-twenties.

Agree that at the higher price, there are better choices, like the Yaris. Fiat 500 may be here in 2009/10, and that looks very nice. Let's hope we get the 'Abarth' version. I would definitely consider that as a daily driver here in LA.

I think the Smart will be a hard sell here -- more of a 'toy' for urban, eco-conscious, latte-sipping types than a functional vehicle. Now, if gas doubles in price... who can say.

A 'hotted-up' version would be amusing.

A neighbor of mine was looking hard at one. They have a Subie wagon for trips, but he wanted a vehicle for the 6 mile commute.
Problem #1, the entry-level price cars were 'not available' at that dealer (Halifax), so you were automatically in for another couple of thousand $.
Problem #2, The salesperson was a pr!ck.
My neighbor 'took a "Fit" (Honda Fit, that is) ;)

Les

I guess you don't watch a lot of Formula 1. The passive safety engineered into the drivers cell, and the cells ability to absorb energy is critical.

Most household residences have more than 1 car, and drive less than 10 miles to work-with most of that being in the 25-50mph range.

Apples to apples folks. 1978 Volvo saftey=No. Hyabusa acelleration=No. Honda insight mileage=No.

Have driven one extensively in Europe. Will carry two people and one bag. Plus a purse if she will put it on her lap. Maybe a couple of drink cans as well. Not much more.

On the open motorway, you can safely leave the pedal on the floor. Will do 120KpH. Radio is spectacular, A/C is even better. Sips fuel. Handles more than adequately. Engine by Mercedes.

I suspect it will not reach here without protest from Detroit.

George,
Very cool! Thanks for posting this!

...if you want to mislead your reader:D

A bug on your windshield at 80-mph shares equal force at impact, your windshield is dirty...the bug is liquified. The Smart is a bug on the windshield of a Duelly:D

Should the usage of duellys by their owners be limited to only need-on-demand permit then?
Mabye buyers of those rolling walls should have to qualify through higher driving requirements- such as 10 years driving experience and bonded.

Hmmm, mabye I'll have to get a class C and use the Kenworth TO more "assertively" towards those little six wheelers driving around me. Change that thought, it's murder plain and simple.

I have driven the Smart roadster in Europe, I thought it was kinda neat for an around the city/town little car. There is even a sport version by Brabus made.

Todd http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1184902180.jpg

Re: Re: Re: Re: Smart Car - Test Drive Report
 

I agree, but it is something one could quickly learn to deal with.:)

If you mean 70 mph is too slow, then you live in an area with a lot less traffic congestion than Toronto. Yes, it's slow for off-peak driving, but at rush hour 30 mph is good here.

He says it is fine at 70 mph, you 'get used to it'. I guess that means the relative size, and the perception of travelling fast inside a pop can.

He also says 70 mph is about the top end, and he wouldn't want to go faster, even if he could.

I believe he uses 4 litres per 100 kilometers, which you all know would be 70 miles per gallon (imperial) or 55 mpg American.

Compre this to a diesel Jetta which uses about 6 litres/100 km, or 50% more fuel.

Not a force question. If neither vehicle is accelerating, force will actually be zero (until the rapid deceleration at impact):). At least using Newton's law.

It's actually a dynamics question, momentum and impact. Momentum is 1/2*m*v^2, i.e. momentum is dependent on mass and velocity. Needless to say, not a good deal for the Smart car. You can calculate the impact energy imparted upon both vehicles, but I'll be damned if I can remember how. Plus, I'm too damned lazy to go look it up.:D

The part I remember is that both sides of the equation must be equal, which is how you find the parts you don't know.;)

I also am a bit lazy. In a collision, the more massive vehicle would have more momentum and the less massive vehicle would not only come to a stop, but would reverse direction since the more massive vehicle would still be moving...Does this make a difference in the equation?

Yeah, that's how it works. Both sides are equal, conservation of linear momentum. Seems like you have to do it in two parts, V1 -> 0, then 0 ->V2. V2 being the velocity (+/-) after the collision. You would also have to know the energy absorbed by each vehicle to make an accurate calculation. For an elastic collision you would have a V2, but this would be inelastic (as in, cars don't bounce off of each other). In this case, seems like you would assume V2=0 for both

1/2*m*(V2-V1)+dE=1/2*m*(V2-V1)+dE

Something like that. With both cars having the same initial and final velocity, the smaller massed car would experience a large change in energy that would either have to be absorbed by the structure or give the car additional momentum.

This is all too rusty, it's been a few years.

Fatality rates are not just about what happens in a collision, but also about how LIKELY you are to have one.

1) Two vehicles, 2500# & 5000# are driving side by side, when they round a trun to find a tractor trailer jacknifed in front of them.

Which one stops in time?

2) Two vehicles lose traction on a slick road, and slide towards the ditch.

Which one goes into the ditch at a higher rate of speed?

For safety, I'd take a small car over an SUV any day...especially in the winter.