2008 Smart Fortwo Passion Coupe: Thing Runs On Premium

dumbest.....not dumpest....

I am pretty dumb myself, but I am still smart enough to not own a Smart car.

I'm asking this question in all seriousness.

What is the advantage of this over Accent/Rio/Yaris/Fit/Aveo?

Is it cheap to buy than them?
No.

Does it get better mileage than them?
No.

Is it safer than them?
No.

Can it run on regular gas like them?
No.

Trust me, I like small cars. I don't think buying Smart is a smart choice over other cheaper alternatives. Other than the 'uniqueness facotr & being easier to park, there's nothing going for this.

Style over function, if you ask me.

wobbly_ears,

So far, I can only manage to found 2 things the Smart car is superior to other cars in the same class:

1, It only take half a parking space.

2, You can tighten the gas cap while the car is in motion.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/2008/07/2008-smart-fortwo-passion-coupe-things-are-as-close-as-they-appear.html

The most common/biggest reason that people likes and would buy the Smart car: Novelty.

Scott, must be sucked to go from the R8 to Smart huh?

Let's compare specific engine output and compression ratio:

Both of these cars runs on 87 octane:

2009 Hyundai Genesis 4.6: 368 hp/4.6L = 80 hp/L. 10.4:1 compression ratio.

2008 Subaru Tribeca: 256 hp/3.6L = 71 hp/L. 10.5:1 compression ratio.

2008 Smart Fortwo: 70 hp/1.0L. 10.0:1 compression ratio.

It doesn't make any sense that the Smart required premium 91 octane. I am guessing it is due to poor engineering.

this thing really needs a new drivetrain

"this thing really needs a new drivetrain"

Be like Lotus, can't figure out the drivetrain, but it from Toyota.

Oh wait, Toyota is saving it for their iQ, never mind.

The ridiculousness is that in Europe, 95 octane gas is the regular grade and the 98 to 100 octane the premium!

"The ridiculousness is that in Europe, 95 octane gas is the regular grade and the 98 to 100 octane the premium!"

banhugh, you need some education. Read the 2nd paragraph (Measurement methods) from the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

"this thing really needs a new drivetrain"

It had a better drivetrain. The Smart we got in Canada for the last 3 years had a diesel and it really did get 70 mpg. In order to appeal to American tastes they swapped the slow diesel for a slow gas engine.... and mileage dropped way down.

The idea is great (why drive more car then needed) but it needs the diesel back and a real manual transmission.

Firstwagon's right: I was fascinated with the Smart when it first appeared here in Canada with the diesel. When they "upgraded" the newgen vehicle with the 1.0 litre, premium-swilling gas-burner, I lost interest. A Honda Fit on a bad day will whip it on every front. A diesel - or better yet, diesel-hybrid - might tip the balance back in its favor.

Funny how cars get dumber when they're engineered for American tastes. The prevailing sense is that cars gotta always have bigger engines with more hp. That kind of thinking has got to change. And fast.

Buying a Smart car is the dumbest decision you can make. Its only purpose is to allow me to make such witty contradictions as you see above. Wow.

Maybe it wasn't meant to come to the US during development.
As banhugh says, RON 95 (91 octane) is regular poor people gas in Europe.

billt9

just look at lazyhater post again.

he shows that even with our lower octane, cars can generate similar hp outputs.

And octane is not a sign of fuel quality.

The emissions standards for diesels that went into effect for 2006 made it impossible to bring over the diesel SMART (indeed any diesel) without radical re-engineering. Even VW dropped diesels for a two or three model years because of it. Trucks escaped because diesels are found in three quarter and one tons which have a high enough GVWR to be exempt from passenger vehicle emission standards.

Considering the Geo Metro made 55 HP and 58 lb/ft with a SOHC 3-cylinder displacing 0.993 L, premium does seem really silly for the SMART...

Real transmission + diesel engine and suddenly this car makes sense. Otherwise it's a novelty.

They could have gotten identical torque/power numbers had they bothered to tune it for 87 octane. 68 ft-lb/L is only mediocre for a modern NA engine (and downright lousy for one requiring premium, unless you can rev it to 9000 rpm...). A good engine will get you 70-75 ft-lb/L on 87 octane.

Is premium REQUIRED for this or just recommended?

"Is premium REQUIRED for this or just recommended?"

I bet you it is just recommended, another stupid Mercedes thing.

I was curious of why the Smart car don't get better gas mileage, so I just compared it's spec to the Yaris and Fit.

Both the Yaris and Fit are MUCH quicker, with 35 more hp from a 50% bigger engine, weight 500~600 lbs more, with wider tires, and a bigger frontal area (they are both 5 inches wider then the Smart) Yet they provide about the same gas mileage as the Smart.

Again, call me a Toyota fanboy and a Mercedes hater, the inferiority of the Smart is caused by poor engineering from Mercedes Benz.