2008 Smart Fortwo Passion: One More Reason Not to Hate the Smart

Ahh, the $24,000, easy-to-park Stupidmobile.

The M3 looks great from that angle. I love the exhaust and rear diffuser arrangement.

Saw a grey and black smart sitting at a used car lot the other day. (there were actually 3 in my field of view, the other two were driving/sitting at a light) At least they wont need to make much more room on the lot when the rest start poaring in.

The Smart's nice for small parking spaces, but I'll take the FX50 that's on the left for everything else. (:

I must have missed all the other reasons not to hate it.

So what tires did you order for the M3?

just a small car in general is nice... i still see no purpose for the smart car. get a mini if you want small... it'll get 37 mpg and its actually an enjoyable drive.

PS. yes i am aware the mini is bigger than the smart. my point is there is no reason for such a small car. especially if you can't simply park perpendicular to a curb.

Does the M3 have a keyhole?

if you want good fuel economy, get a Jetta TDI. 5 seats, bigger, safer, and just as easy to park

the smart drives me crazy. Ugly, slow, useless, and expensive. I wonder if people who buy them actually think they're smart.

Dare I say that is the best angle to view the M3.

"if you want good fuel economy, get a Jetta TDI"

"i still see no purpose for the smart car. get a mini if you want small... "

I haven't checked US pricing but here in Canada, a Smart starts $8,000 cheaper then a Mini and $10,000 cheaper then a Jetta TDI.

Hardly a valid comparision.

(Yes I know you can run one up to $24,000, but you can run the Jetta or the Mini up to $40K)

"(Yes I know you can run one up to $24,000, but you can run the Jetta or the Mini up to $40K)"

You know, you're right. I remember one time, I think there was a blog post showing the Mini website, and I went on, and with every option, the Mini tops out at about $40,000. Amazing.

That's neat i shall try the web sites:
Smart ForTwo Coupe: $13,235 - $16,225 (Edmund's is $15,305)
Mini Cooper: $19,700 - $32,980 (without the JCW tuner crap)
Jetta TDI: $22,270 - $24,370

The Smart Cabriolet runs up to $18,875. The $24,000 is from the dealer markup post, not an actual price you would pay... unless you're stupid.

These continuous arguments against the smart are silly. Face the facts: the smart stands alone! There are no other "city cars" sold in America, and these continuous attempts to compare it to cars outside its segment are as pointless as comparing a Mini Cooper to a BMW M5. Until we get the Ford Ka, Toyota iQ, or other city cars over here you guys are comparing apples to gerbils.

The idea behind the long-term test is to judge the car on it's own merits and benefit from the staff's first-hand experiences. Most of the comments here reveal that few of you have seen or driven the ForTwo, and despite that ignorance have already written it off as a possible purchase - how is it people that know so little have got so much to say? Sheesh!

"Most of the comments here reveal that few of you have seen or driven the ForTwo, and despite that ignorance have already written it off as a possible purchase."

Seen it, yes. Driven it, no. But the IL folks have been pretty thorough in describing the Smart's lesser-ness. There's only so much criticism I'm willing to overlook.

And now I will use one of the classic debate techniques found in the IL comment sections. The Smart Fortwo sucks. Period.

Agree with edubya (and LOLd at his last line).

I hear a lot about how American car companies didn't learn anything from the gas crunch of the 70s. That's true, but apparently consumers have also forgotten the Suzuki Samurai.

I work in DC proper and live in the 'burbs (MD side). The Smart may be billed as a city car, but I see most of them on the freeway and in the suburbs. I see very few in the city itself. You put one of these things on the freeway, you're really begging for it.

That Smart looks so wrong next to an M3.

edubya-

Speaking as someone who has driven the Smart- it really does suck.

It's like driving a slightly taller, underpowered go kart. With doors. Kinda.

It's like riding in one of those red plastic cars they used to have at day care's across the country. There's nothing behind you but glass, there's nothing in front of you but a steering wheel and glass, and it feels like you're just waiting for the wind to pick it up and blow it into the next lane. As a city car, it's wonderful. Easy to park, quick enough to get to the next stop sign, etc. But that little bit of convenience would not be enough for me to actually own one. They just feel too flimsy.

epbronw:
The Smart sucks. I have driven it. And frankly, speaking from experience, I didn't have to drive a Yugo to know it sucked. Some things just aren't right, and the Smart is an example of that. Cute, sure. Trendy, sure.
But please, I'll take that M3 every day, all day and twice on Sundays. That, my friend, is a drive.

I know several Smart owners that have had them for years (we got them a while ago in Canada)and I have never met an OWNER that didn't love their litte car.

I realize it's not for everyone though. Some people's ego can never manage driving a little cute car and others are afraid of having less then 2 tonnes of steel surrounding them.

fadetoblackii wrote: "As a city car, it's wonderful. Easy to park, quick enough to get to the next stop sign, etc."

And that's the problem, right there. The Smart ForTwo *is* a city car - the entire concept behind it, all its development has been towards that end. And every single time a reviewer or any reasonably objective person considers it from that perspective, uses it as it's intended, it's undeniably good. But everyone misuses it, then says its crap.

Why not give a 996 GT3 to a soccer mom and listen to her grouse about its poor cargo capacity, harsh ride, and low seating position? The responses here would start with "What a stupid b----" ...and then they'd get insulting. Because everyone understands what the GT3's purpose is and we don't expect it to do everything else well, too.

The same applies to the Smart Fortwo - its built for a specific environment, it's equally secialized, and you can no more expect it be a great track car than you'd expect the Porsche GT3 to also be a cheap to buy and maintain urban commuter.

If you're in the market for a city car, you won't find a more effective tool than a Smart. If you *don't* need a city car, there are other options - tons of them; that doesn't make them better city cars, any more than a Range Rover makes a better track car because it can haul more kids than a GT3.

Firstwagon, maybe that's the best attitude to have about the Smart -- it's not for everyone. The wide range of uses I require of my vehicle makes the Smart a bad proposition for me, but I see where you and epbronw are coming from.

And maybe there is a bit of ego; I can't imagine myself owning a "cute" car.

If it's such a specialized car, why do I keep seeing them on freeways and suburbs? I work in DC, and take regular runs of five-plus miles around the city. It's rare that I see a Fortwo in this environment.

It's a terrible car for anyone who has to get on a freeway or drive at speed. Tall, with a very narrow/square wheelbase. Does nobody remember the Suzuki Samurai? Cage be damned, this is the only car that rated under 4 stars for rollover.

Given its weight and dimensional deficiencies relative to 99% of the other cars on the road (the Cooper outweighs it by 800+ pounds), this thing is going to be a pinball in any environment where speeds exceed 45mph. Frankly, they ought to be illegal for people who don't live in a city.

It actually has something in common with the Samurai. Both are judged a high risk for roll- overs by people who judge on looks alone.

Suzuki proved the Samurai would not roll easy and that the Consumer Reports test were rigged.

I've driven Smart on the freeway at 75 mph and it was fine. You don't even notice you are in a tiny car, even around big rigs. Much better then the Geo Metro of the 90's.

firstwagon-

Having driven both the Smart and enjoying the rare pleasure of driving a Geo Metro hatchback to high school every day a few years back, I'd say the Metro was actually better on the highway.

It got much better gas mileage (50+ HWY in our manual model), had an actual back seat AND a bigger cargo area, and it cost less.

No firstwagon, I'm judging on physics. Your car weighs 1800 pounds (fully 1,000 pounds less than pretty much everything on the road. Might want to look up the formula for momentum.

It is also tall (5" higher than a Cooper) with an extremely narrow track and short wheelbase. Such vehicles have a tendency to topple.

The fact that you "feel safe" at 75mph and haven't yet had an accident means nothing. Get back to us when some average car (a Mazda 6 for instance) doesn't see you in his blind spot and cuts over and your cars connect at 75mph. I'm sorry, but you're going to roll.

The rollover reports are already coming in on the Fortwo. As a city car, passable. On the freeway, I'm sorry, but you are gambling with your life.

Finally, the Samurai wasn't judged unfairly. It was a rollover risk and every time I've seen a Smart take a corner, I've been reminded of the Suzuki. Lots of tilt.

Good luck!

tenfifteen - I agree that LOTS of people buy the Smart because it's cute or gets good gas mileage, not because it fits their lifestyles. Hanging out on the Smart forums it seems almost everyone lives in rural areas or suburbs, and I wouldn't own one in those environments. Why do people buy cars unsuited for their circumstances. I dunno - ask about 80% of the people driving SUVs and pick-up trucks.

But for the rest - safety, speed, and rollover concerns, I have to point out that the Smart is new HERE - it's been on sale in Europe for 10 years, there are 700,000 on the roads, and Europeans aren't known for puttering along (come to that, nor am I). If the Smart was constantly rolling over and every accident above 20mph resulted in a fiery death surrounded by crumpled steel and plastic, then it's been the subject of the most successful cover-up since Clark Kent's glasses.

The ones in Europe are driven almost exclusively in population-dense, urban environments, and I'll point out again that there are a lot more small cars there in general. You're not going to be tangling with many Tahoes in Berlin or Paris, I'd wager.

Apart from the autobahn (where I doubt you'll see many Smarts), "speed" in Europe is largely a matter of zipping in and out of traffic. The original Mini would be an utter deathtrap on American highways, but it's a perfectly reasonable car in London. Ditto the Smart. In an environment where it's one of many tiny cars on the road and where the average speeds are lower and in urban environments... great.

Here... where the majority of cars are giant, and the way we get to/fro is largely by 65-70mph interstates, it's a bad idea. Just mho.

I don't know how you can blithely state that the Smart is driven "almost exclusively in population-dense, urban environments." I've seen nothing that indicates that - certainly not the Smart owners I've spoken with over there, who often talk of driving theirs on the Autobahn.

And in addition to Europe, the Smart has been for sale in Canada for a few years, and their vehicle traffic is pretty similar to ours, with as many trucks and SUVs.

I get that you don't think the Smart is a good idea for high-speed traffic, but you're talking as if there is more than your gut-feeling. I looked for numbers on this car being a deathtrap and came up empty. I've never found even an *anecdote* about a Smart rolling over. I'm going to need more than a bunch of people saying "Eh, looks dangerous to me" to take these dire warnings seriously.

"The fact that you "feel safe" at 75mph and haven't yet had an accident means nothing"

30 years of driving almost anything with wheels, no accidents... I've got a good feel for what is safe.

And I didn't say I felt safe, I said it felt fine. Perfectly happy cruising down the highway.

"Such vehicles have a tendency to topple."

Complete nonsense. There isn't a vehicle on the road with a tendency to topple. The truth is it's very hard to roll anything unless you're trying to do it or you're a really bad driver.

...oh no, someone cut me off, lets start jerking the wheel back and worth...

BTW... did you know both ambulances and school buses roll over at lower speeds in tests then the Samurai did? Sure wouldn't want to put anyone I care about in one of those.

mmmm.... even with a bum leg the M3 is sexy. Wait... what were you saying about the clown car?

Well let's face it...the smart car has a lot of women drive them for its cutesy styling and my neighbor has one, along with a new A6 and Cayenne Turbo. I myself like small cars with a Z4 3.0SI and Audi TT and I consider myself a little different than other 20+ year olds. My take on the Smart is it's a great idea, much like the Mini. It's fun-looking and pretty cheap for all that personality which the Geo Metro never had. Is it the most fuel efficient...no. Is it the most practical car...no, but when was the last time you can get into something for 13k and have so much controversy surrounding it? It reminds me of Apple Computer, some people get it some people don't. I still prefer PC but, I wouldn't mind having one. The fact that some people here have done so much research on it, just to point out its faults is great LOL!

Interesting debate, mixed with some crazy anecdotal comments. I haven't driven the Smart, but I don't mind the idea of such a vehicle. Though for a few $$ more, the MINI is a much better option! I may be biased on that one though...

dougtheeng, a FEW dollars more? A base Smart is $11,990, a base Mini is $19,200 - 60% more. The Yaris and Aveo would be cheaper, and as practical, though not as fun or nice-looking, I'll concede. None of them would save me 20-30 minutes a night looking for parking like the Smart does. That's 125 hours a year more free time - over 5 days.

And thanks to our recent snowstorms, I've found another benefit to Smart ownership - it takes less time to dig out after the plows have come through. :/

epbronw:

I am assuming that most people can't get a smart anywhere near $11,990 due to:

a) dealer mark ups mean that the mythical $12,000 car does not exist

b) the low end Smart is sort lacking on options so I assume that most people spend at least a few thousand on them, whereas the lowest end MINI is pretty much good to go.

So, in theory the MINI is 60% more. In practice, I'm guessing that gap is much smaller.

For the theoretical gap to be smaller, people have to be buying optioned Smarts and barebones Minis. I don't see a lot of bare-bones Minis; would you happen to know the ratio of base Coopers to Cooper Ss? When I bought my Pure I was told that only 5% of all Smarts sold are Pures.

You can avoid any chance of dealer markup by ordering a car and waiting for it, so getting a $12,000 Smart is completely do-able. The dealers can not ask for more than MSRP on an ordered car, period. Actally, they can't ask for more than MSRP on any car unless it's got dealer-added options. I paid sticker for mine, which was $11,990 plus the $600 AC option and the $350 radio 9 option.