Funny thing is, I keep running across the same comments in the reviews. Generally reviewers like the compact convenience of the car, HATE the transmission, and admire the amount of cargo space in such a small package.
They also almost universally mention that they'd rather have a Versa instead.
Almost every review of the Smart I've read makes a comment about the Versa offering the same milage in a more practical package and without the Smart's horrendous SMG--all for the same price as a Smart.

Says a lot for the Versa, I think, that it can be so much larger and offer equivalent fuel milage for the same price.

Personally, I think the US market is going to force a design change in the Smart. US buyers aren't going to put up with the harsh, clunky, noisy transmission that the car is currently cursed with. If they don't come up with a better option, the car is going to flop.

Who will provide the Grand Design? What is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more New Frontier; we have got to make it here.
We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds
In the name of Destiny. And in the name of God.
-The Eagles, The Last Resort

Modified by daggonit at 3:09 PM 5/9/2008

http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/C...F150/

Such an attitude actually LEADS us partially to our demand for large vehicles like SUV, because they give the illusion of control and safety. Now, if the Smart got hit hard by an H2, yeah it's possible the driver didn't survive. An H2 is what, 6000+ pounds? And has a solid ladder frame.

But bear this in mind... my 2700 pound Versa, at a dead stop, got nailed squarely in the rear by a 5300 pound Ford F150 that was still doing approximately 25 MPH, and shoved into a 6000+ pound Suburban.

And I walked away unscratched.

It's all about how you design the car for safety. Once the IIHS and NHTSA give ratings to the Smart, you'll have a better idea of how it will actually fare.

That said... thing's too bloody small. I can't even sit comfortably in a Kia Rio. That would be an absolute clown car by comparison.

Oh, I agree. BUT, I think the FourTwo (at least in the US) has missed the mark. It SHOULD be better. Should get better milage. Should be more driver-friendly. And it should be cheaper.

I'm actually pretty disappointed with the "fuel efficient" car movement. I mean, think about it...
In the early 90s, we had compacts that got 30-40mpg. Now we're FIGHTING to re-attain those numbers. The problem is that compacts to day are NOT compact. The Smart models are.

It should be noted that I'm not a fan of small cars for myself. I'm a tall guy and I'm a sucker for noisy V8s. I'd rather drive my loud, heavy, fuel-gulping Q45 than an efficient econocar any day. But that doesn't mean I don't see the point of little cars like the Smart and Versa.

I also hadn't really considered how different the North American FourTwo was until this discussion. It really is too bad.

I will offer one more counterpoint to the Smart, though:
I think it, like a lot of other efficient "solution" cars on the market, are not ideal for North American driving conditions. They're all from places like Japan or Europe where driving is primarily slow, heavy-traffic or local commuting. That's not how it works here. A 300+hp V6 is going to be just as efficient at 75mph as a hybrid or tiny 4 (or less) cylinder, if not moreso.

Who will provide the Grand Design? What is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more New Frontier; we have got to make it here.
We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds
In the name of Destiny. And in the name of God.
-The Eagles, The Last Resort

I wish I still had my 1977 Datsun B210 hatchback. It was a rated for 50 mpg and I routinely got high-40s. Granted it didn't have air bags or any other safety features except a padded dashboard (my parent's had a Rambler in the 60's with a push-button transmission, steel dash and no seat belts), but the Feds should have pushed the industry a long time ago. We've had fuel crisis' before - early 70s. (for the younger readers, Datsun was renamed Nissan)

I test drove a LOT of cars before buying the Versa...I even owned a Honda Fit before the Versa (don't get me started on the Fit). It's hard to find a fully loaded, fuel efficient, comfortable vehicle for under $20,000 in the US. Fortunately the Versa is out there and meets all of those points very nicely.

David

As for the Vibe/Matrix, Versa comparison, I have both a Vibe and a Versa (there's something about cars that start with "V") and I like both cars. The Vibe handles well and has tons of room. I prefer the handling and styling of the Versa tho. On the other hand my son prefers to drive the Vibe.

Lots of SmartCars around here -- most I've seen are used by businesses as advertisements and local transportation. Not sure that I would take one on the 401 but I've seen them there too (mind you, the first time I drove on the 401 was in the middle of an amazing downpour/thunderstorm; I drove with the wipers on "fast" and they barely kept up with the rain; I was going 130 km/hr in the slow lane, being passed by semis and motorcycles. I've since adapted).

last fill: 8.92 ltr/100 km [31.68 imp /26.37 US mpg]
long term: 9.57 ltr/100 km [29.53imp /24.57 US mpg]

2 wheels: 1980 Honda 750 CBK, White [on the road!!!]
2 wheels: 1992 Suzuki GSE 500 [RIP]

Say what? Do you really believe this?

I understand what you mean about cars like the ForTwo being more suited toward both European driving style and driving conditions.

But I'd sure like to know what 300+hp V6 powered car gets "tiny 4-cylinder" highway gas mileage...

Here are the highway EPA ratings for several common 300+hp V6s:

Infiniti G35: 23 to 25 MPG depending on trim, 3.5L V6 - 306hp
Infiniti G37: 24 to 26 MPG depending on trim, 3.7L V6 - 330hp
Lexus IS350: 25 MPG, 3.5L V6 - 306hp
BMW 335i: 26 MPG, 3.0L I6 - 300hp
BMW 535i: 26 MPG, 3.0L I6 - 300hp
Cadillac CTS: 26 MPG, 3.6L Direct Injection V6 - 304 hp
Cadillac STS: 26 MPG, 3.6L VVT V6 - 302 hp

You can even throw in many sub-300hp V6s for kicks:

Nissan Altima: 26 to 27 MPG manual/auto, 3.5L V6 - 270hp
Nissan Maxima: 25 MPG, 3.5L V6 - 255hp
Honda Accord: 29 MPG, 3.5L V6 - 268hp

You apparently haven't spent much time in any I4 powered cars for the past 15 (or more) years. The Versa pulls a mere 2600 RPM @ 75 mph - the engine is all but hushed and gas mileage is in the low-to-mid 30s.

My old G20 was at slightly higher RPMs @ 75 mph with it's 145hp 2.0L I4, but still returned 32+MPG at highway speeds.

Here are some other "tiny 4-cylinder" cars' EPA highway ratings:

Toyota Corolla: 35 MPG, 1.8L I4 - 132hp
Toyota Yaris: 36 MPG, 1.5L I4 - 106hp
Nissan Sentra: 33 MPG (CVT), 2.0L I4 - 140hp
Honda Civic: 36 MPG (auto), 1.8L I4 - 140 hp

Heck, my '93 Sentra XE (1.6L I4, 110hp) achieved 40 MPG, even with the cruise set at 80 mph. Of course, that was when gas mileage wasn't a primary concern for most folks.

All I'm saying, though, is that acting as if a 300+hp V6 will get the same gas mileage as a 4-cylinder on the highway is preposterous. It kind of reminds me of one of my coworkers that is apparently stuck in 1975. He's afraid of getting his wife a 4-cyl powered car, because he wasn't sure how good they'd be for long trips (?).


Modified by Rockhound at 11:22 PM 5/9/2008

I own a '77 B210 HB. It sat in my dads garage for about 15 years so it's not roadworthy yet but it should be by the end of the year.

To clarify, that's only the CVT version of the Versa. a 6MT will be running closer to 3250 RPM @ 75 MPH, and the fuel economy will be below peak. The Manual's fuel economy drops off pretty fast after 70 MPH.

MoD - In outright fuel efficiency, large powerful engines will not beat a 4-cylinder. You have to use more fuel to move the larger mass. However, there is something to be said for having power in certain vehicles, at least to a balancing point. I've run across a couple models that have two engine choices... a 4 cylinder that is too underpowered, and a 6 cylinder that is well balanced. As a result, the 6 cylinder version gets the same fuel economy as the 4 cylinder in real-world situations.

That was my first car in 1976 or maybe 1977. Anyway, I had it for three months before someone pulled out in front of me and totaled the car. I walked away, so the safety was excellent even then. I paid for it myself and remember something on the order of $3000 or so. Stick shift, rather basic but a good car. Fred

What do you mean finally? It has been avaliable for 3-4 years, but not from Mercedes. There was a dealer just up the street from where I used to work that turned to a used car place after Mercedes decided to sell them directly in the US.

I have seen maybe 10 of the clown cars driving around in the past 3-4 years.

When I 1st saw them, It was sweat, a 50-60 mpg car. That is worth $30k, fuel savings alone would have made the monthly payments. But when I really looked, I was very disapointed with the mileage. It would save money, but not offset the higher payment.

I wish car makers would bring a few more Euro cars here. I am glad VW is bringing the 75mpg Gulf in 2010.

The Versa could have better mpg if they would have spaced the gearing in the 6mt better. The geared it like a racer, not an econobox.

I can't wait for the plug-in hybrids with 100+ mile range / full charge. I would never buy another gallon of gas to go to work.

2nd Nissan: 2007 Versa S HB 6-speed.

It's EPA combined rating is 36 MPG. And it can be had for well under $20k.

2nd Nissan: 2007 Versa S HB 6-speed.

Right, but now they're actually here. They're being manufactured and sold to federal standards (which have, apparently, destroyed the car's appeal--time to re-evaluate your standards, NHTSA!).

Who will provide the Grand Design? What is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more New Frontier; we have got to make it here.
We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds
In the name of Destiny. And in the name of God.
-The Eagles, The Last Resort

These banned diesels pollute about half the ppm/mile than the Prius (which is the cleanest EPA rated fuel burning car/gallon).

It is time for real leadership to shake things up at the EPA for the benefit of everyone (except the guys selling fuel).

2nd Nissan: 2007 Versa S HB 6-speed.

15,500 miles, Purchased: 12-27-06

A quick search of various UK car sites found these:

Merceds C-Class (not 70s, but significantly higher than the same engine here) select the C230

us - http://www.carsdirect.com/2007/mercedesbenz/c230

uk - http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.u....html

Peugeot

206 - http://ww3.peugeot.co.uk/ppp/P...b.pdf (73)
107 - http://ww3.peugeot.co.uk/ppp/P...t.pdf (68)

Fiat 500 http://www.fiat.co.uk/WorkArea...10689

Ford - yeah, they can actually make a decent car, just not here:

http://www.ford.co.uk/safari/a...iesel/-/-/-/-
http://www.ford.co.uk/safari/c...iesel/-/-/-/-
http://www.ford.co.uk/safari/f...iesel/-/-/-/-
http://www.ford.co.uk/safari/f...iesel/-/-/-/-
http://www.ford.co.uk/safari/f...iesel/-/-/-/-

Despite its small size, Smart has a very rigid frame. It is as strong as a roll cage. Most junkyard crushers have problem dealing with Smart. Instead they have to be cut with a torch.

I saw these pics of a hardbody t-boned Smart on another forum. Take a look for yourself.

Yet another case of "doesn't fit North American purposes."

In Europe, "compact" parking spots are common.
In the US, they're all but nonexistent. Being able to park two Smarts in one spot isn't beneficial when there's not going to be another Smart to fill the other half. Now you're just using a whole spot for a tiny car. No benefit there.

Who will provide the Grand Design? What is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more New Frontier; we have got to make it here.
We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds
In the name of Destiny. And in the name of God.
-The Eagles, The Last Resort

Parking space for micro cars is a chicken and egg problem. Without Smarts on the road, there would be no demand for for the half sized parking spaces. If there is enough take up on Smart, parking operators will reconfigure their garages as long as it makes economic sense. In countries where motorcycle and scooters are more common, they can also reconfigure those parking spaces for micro cars.

If economic forces are driving the changes, it is not going to happen over night. Europe has a 10 year head start, and I think they are faring pretty well.

None of those cars get even close to 80 mpg.

Some are listed as miles per litre, not miles per gallon.

I'm sure some European diesels get mileage into the 40-50 range (Ford Mondeo listed, 53 mpg) but there's no mass produced car that I know of getting 70-80 MILE PER GALLON.

15,500 miles, Purchased: 12-27-06

50, yes. But what car gets 80 mpg on diesel?

15,500 miles, Purchased: 12-27-06

T-boned? At what speed? 20 mph?

I'd take my chances in a body on frame SUV or 1/2 ton pickup any day over being hit while in a Smart.

And what source do you have that indicate junkyards have to cut Smarts with torches instead or crushing it? You're telling me junkyards across the country can crush most automobiles and trucks but a Smart has to be torch cut?

Modified by Bubs daddy at 3:32 AM 5/11/2008

15,500 miles, Purchased: 12-27-06