[QUOTE=The_Canuck;694951]I think he can make the same argument for larger American cars :p[/QUOTE]
That's because he doesn't know what he's missing. :D
Printable View
[QUOTE=The_Canuck;694951]I think he can make the same argument for larger American cars :p[/QUOTE]
That's because he doesn't know what he's missing. :D
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;694953]And cause a backup of traffic taking 60 seconds to get to highway speeds![/QUOTE]
Actually it isn't that slow. It does 0-100km/h in 10"9 seconds, which isn't bad.
In fact there are much worse things than the performance about the Smart...
[QUOTE=Ferrer;694956]Actually it isn't that slow. It does 0-100km/h in 10"9 seconds, which isn't bad.
In fact there are much worse things than the performance about the Smart...[/QUOTE]
I've seen figures of 0-60 mph in 17 seconds. Add that to the fact that most U.S. drivers go 70-75 mph on the freeway, and you're looking at 25+ seconds to get to cruising speed.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;694957]I've seen figures of 0-60 mph in 17 seconds. Add that to the fact that most U.S. drivers go 70-75 mph on the freeway, and you're looking at 20+ seconds to get to cruising speed.[/QUOTE]
I quoted the latest model, but anyway the performance isn't [I]that[/I] bad.
I would be more worried about the fact that it can only carry 2 people, it has a stupid gearbox, stupid handling, no boot whatsoever (at least the old one) and it costs a heartbreaking amount of money.
A Fiat Panda or a Citroen C1 is a much better proposition if you are in the market for a small city car.
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine;694789]
You would be walking Fleet when your "town car" got stuck on roads like [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErcuNWgmR8o"]THIS [/URL]:)
[/QUOTE]
BTW, why would my Town Car get stuck on roads like that?
[QUOTE=Ferrer;694959]I quoted the latest model, but anyway the performance isn't [I]that[/I] bad.[/QUOTE]
Bad enough. Especially out in the real world, and not some closed-course test drive.
[QUOTE]I would be more worried about the fact that it can only carry 2 people, it has a stupid gearbox, stupid handling, no boot whatsoever (at least the old one) and it costs a heartbreaking amount of money.
A Fiat Panda or a Citroen C1 is a much better proposition if you are in the market for a small city car[/QUOTE]
Yeah, let's get off the subject of that ridiculous car (or half-car, to be more accurate).
[QUOTE=Ferrer;694956]Actually it isn't that slow. It does 0-100km/h in 10"9 seconds, which isn't bad.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]1975 Cadillac Coupe DeVille 500ci 11.9 18.1
1979 Cadillac Eldorado (Diesel) 16.9 20.7
1979 Cadillac Eldorado (Turbo Diesel) 15.2 20.1
1973 Cadillac Fleetwood 472ci 10.2 17.6
1985 Cadillac Fleetwood 11.7 18.2
1993 Cadillac Fleetwood 10.0 17.5
1976 Cadillac Seville 350ci 12.9 18.8
1977 Cadillac Seville 350ci 13.7 18.2
1980 Cadillac Seville Elegante 10.6 17.9
1981 Cadillac Seville Diesel 21.0 N/A
1986 Cadillac Seville 11.7 18.2
1986 Cadillac Touring Sedan 12.0 18.6[/QUOTE]
[i](source)[/i]
[url]http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html[/url]
[quote=Fleet 500;694960]BTW, why would my Town Car get stuck on roads like that?[/quote]
You'd never get round some of the corners without scraping the inside on the walls/trees and the fenders as well on the outside.
Fair chance of having an accident too as you're pretty much 1/3 way round every corner before you can SEE round it to see if it's safe :)
oh and unless MB/Smart are stupid and damage the performance then you need to educate yourself with a test drive.
You will be suprised at the performance.
It's NOT as "sluggish" as you're trying to make out and doesnt' need hard acceleration out of bends ( coz it keeps speed up through them ) .
What have you driven that's comparable ? I've driven "big ole V8s" over the decades. How are you placed to make the comparison.
Latest gen Smart FourFour Brabus is 0-60mph in 6.9s btw :)
Oh and the gearbox flappy paddles thing is poor if trying to drive it like a "real" gearbox. I was shown how to drive it and you can really push it on, you just have to "Plan" your gear changes a second or two ahead :D
i would hate to get in a wreck at speed in a smart also.
when i wrecked my silverado i hit a toyota carolla that was completely stopped just over the bluff of a hill at 60mph. the poor guy had broken several bones and was hospitalized for quite a while while i didn't have a scratch on me. i learned then that it is always better to be the hammer than the nail, and if you are driving a smart car, you are always gonna be the nail (unless your run into a small motorcycle)
[quote=roosterjuicer;694967]i would hate to get in a wreck at speed in a smart also.
when i wrecked my silverado i hit a toyota carolla that was completely stopped just over the bluff of a hill at 60mph. the poor guy had broken several bones and was hospitalized for quite a while while i didn't have a scratch on me. i learned then that it is always better to be the hammer than the nail, and if you are driving a smart car, you are always gonna be the nail (unless your run into a small motorcycle)[/quote]
I made the same assumption, but, as I have learned, they're actually quite safe little cars.
I'd still hate to drive one, but I doubt that I'd hate it any more than the car I drive now.
[QUOTE=nota;694964][i](source)[/i]
[url]http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html[/url][/QUOTE]
The sources I checked list an average of 17 seconds for 0-100 kph. Ranging from 15.5 to 20.8 seconds.
Why did you list Cadillac diesels? And what is the 1/4 mile time for the Smart for Two?
Here are a couple more Cadillac times:
1964 Sedan de Ville, 0-60 mph 8.5 secs, 1/4 mile 16.4 @ 86 mph
1966 Sedan de Ville, 0-60 mph 9.5 secs, 1/4 mile 17.0 @ 82
1968 Coupe de Ville, 0-60 mph 9.1 secs, 1/4 mile 17.0 @ 84
1969 Coupe de Ville, 0-60 mph 9.4 secs, 1/4 mile 16.5 @ 83.8
1971 Sedan de Ville, 0-60 mph 10.1 secs, 1/4 mile 17.6 @ 80
[QUOTE=roosterjuicer;694967] i learned then that it is always better to be the hammer than the nail, and if you are driving a smart car, you are always gonna be the nail (unless your run into a small motorcycle)[/QUOTE]
that is the ridiculous argument always used for justifying the increase in car size (and weight). Your Silverrado can also meet a Peterbilt and then you will be the nail. So your next Silverrado will be the size of a Kenworth?
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;694984]1871 Sedan de Ville, 0-60 mph 10.1 secs, 1/4 mile 17.6 @ 80[/QUOTE]
wow, way ahead of its time....
You, Sir, should please have a look at what a Smart can do. It will easily float with American traffic, which in my experience is one of the slowest in the world anyway. It is not that I would like to drive one, but your attitude towards the car is based on lack of knowledge and prejudice rather than experience.
[quote=Fleet 500;694984]The sources I checked list an average of 17 seconds for 0-100 kph. Ranging from 15.5 to 20.8 seconds.
Why did you list Cadillac diesels?[/quote]
To stop selective comparisons :)
Like you are doing by picking the "performance" versions :)
[quote]And what is the 1/4 mile time for the Smart for Two?[/quote]
Depends on what engine variants they provide.
I see the US Smart site still doesn't quote performance or consumption figures yet :(
Bad.
Over here you can get the bottom end 50hpo and take 18s to 60 or the top Brabus and get 11s for the coupe and faster for the ForFour.
[quote]Here are a couple more Cadillac times[/quote]
See ... picking the fast ones and choosing to put aside the slow ones ?
Fine, just do apples-apples :)
[QUOTE=roosterjuicer;694967]i would hate to get in a wreck at speed in a smart also. [/QUOTE]
that excuse for safety has been taken by the rolly polly SUV mob already