Foreign Interests

[Matra et Alpine]

i dunno if i coulda been towing my boat and 5 friends + all our gear up to the river in a Smart.

True ... true ... but why tow the boat there anyway. That's what berths are for and save some fuel and the environment
( But seriously, NOBODY is suggesting only once car can do everything -- unless it's a brougham seemingly sic )

also, to jump into the whole "highway speeds" argument ya'll are having. im sure the smart can reach highway speeds and ill even asume it can get there in less than 13 seconds. but can a smart cruise comfortably for long periods of time at 70-75mph? or is it huffing and puffing and trying as hard as it can to maintain those kinds of speeds?

Nephew drives from Birmingham to Scotland to visit family. He's also driven round Europe. He can sit nicely at 80-95 in his Smart (Brabus version).
It's as comfortable as an Elise - so you'd not want to do it daily - but see the point above
No huffing and puffing -- though I'm guessing Denver woudl give it a challenge

[SlickHolden]

I don't want a lambo or Ferrari... There only a show off car to be honest, I'd like to see one carry 5 people and skip over bumps.. Never happens.

American cars Hmmmmmmm......
I don't hate U.S cars but i do have some things against them the faster ones..
The faster sportier (muscle) cars don't allow for your daily driving or daily needs with extra they are more self fun rather then stick your mates in and go for a spin and show them what the new beast does then go out for pizza. Some ways the 300c srt is different and trys to be the car with muscle and flexabilty.. Even though i feel the suspension is a little soft still they handle much better then the 300c does. and at least with this srt you can have kids and not need to sell it because it's to hard sticking a baby seat in the rear with 2 door or no rear seat.
Anything with only 2 seats didn't appeal to me until a few months ago.

[Ferrer]

Nephew drives from Birmingham to Scotland to visit family. He's also driven round Europe. He can sit nicely at 80-95 in his Smart (Brabus version).
It's as comfortable as an Elise - so you'd not want to do it daily - but see the point above
No huffing and puffing -- though I'm guessing Denver woudl give it a challenge

But it's the Roadster, isn't it...

Just for the record, from where I got the info:

http://www.carfolio.com/specificatio...specifications

10"9 seconds for the 0-100km/h is remarkably good for a 999cc car. I would be worried if a car with more than 5 times the cubic capacity couldn't match it. But anyway why foucs on it if we have much better cars? I could also say that Caliber is rubbish, or the Sebring or the Impala...

[nota]

But he selectively left out the faster ones.



Those weren't performance versions. They were regular DeVilles with highway gears. They just happened to have more powerful engines than the later ones.

Admit it Fleet, you're just pissed that a 999cc Smart outperforms your beloved Cadillac petrol V8s, including 350cid .. 472 cid .. 500cid

Btw you own a 472 Caddy don't you?

(Admittedly your particular 472 is much more polluting and much less fuel efficient than more recent slow-arse Cadillacs (as per my list) but lets not risk getting too selective)

No different than putting in diesel times, which didn't prove anything anyway. Because I would consider the diesel Cadillacs (and Oldsmobiles) slow getting to highway speeds, too, along with the Smartfortwo.

Yep the Caddy diesels happen to be even slower than those petrol Caddies which are also slower than a supposedly 'slow' Smart

[Fleet 500]

ah the Fleet gene is still in place for selective reading
Yeah fine.

Interesting reply, which didn't really say anything. I would rather be in a big car in the type of accident I described (a collision with a Peterbilt) as would any other sensible person.

oh dear.
g'night

Lol. Oh, dear is right! Meaning you ignored road and weather conditions and did not consider that sometimes they are a major factor in an accident.

[Fleet 500]

Admit it Fleet, you're just pissed that a 999cc Smart outperforms your beloved Cadillac petrol V8s, including 350cid .. 472 cid .. 500cid

LOL. Where did you get the idea that an 8-9 second (0-60 mph) Cadillac is slower than a 10+ second (although I've seen 17 sec figures) Smartfortwo? Lol.

Btw you own a 472 Caddy don't you?

Yes, one of them is a high-compression 472 (10.5:1), 375 hp; 525 ft-lbs torque. And it can easily out accelerate a Smartfortwo!

Admittedly your particular 472 is much more polluting and much less fuel efficient than more recent slow-arse Cadillacs (as per my list) but lets not risk getting too selective)

It's not more polluting when it's only driven about 1,500 miles a year. Think about that one for awhile.

.Yep the Caddy diesels happen to be even slower than those petrol Caddies which are also slower than a supposedly 'slow' Smart

The diesel Cadillacs were a whole different animal (which, btw, I don't consider real Cadillacs- engine-wise, at least). They were also produced during the peak of the anti-smog ear, so performance suffered. However, the later ('90s) Cadillacs, like the Concours, could do 7-second 0-60 mph times and high-14 1/4 miles. Of which, of course, a "Smartfortwo" would have no chance unless it had a 1/8 mile head start!

[Fleet 500]

Btw you own a 472 Caddy don't you?

Incidentally, those 472s, even the low-compression ones from '71-'74, had plenty of torque:
(Now I suppose you are going to tell me that the "Smartfortwo" can also do that.

[jediali]

(Now I suppose you are going to tell me that the "Smartfortwo" can also do that.

What? do a gallon to the mile We don't just drive smarts in europe. Stop making yourself look immature with this American barge vs smart argument. Instead give me an example of an advantage of such a car in your pics that we cant offer in our cars.

[Fleet 500]

What? do a gallon to the mile We don't just drive smarts in europe. Stop making yourself look immature with this American barge vs smart argument. Instead give me an example of an advantage of such a car in your pics that we cant offer in our cars.

No, I mean doing a 50-foot burnout. The advantage? Fun!

Like this '76 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. Remember, it's a low-compression, de-smogged, 5,200-lb car with 2.76 economy gears...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcq0tFE5-Ro

The fun begins after the first minute... 3 burnouts in all.

[Matra et Alpine]

Interesting reply, which didn't really say anything. I would rather be in a big car in the type of accident I described (a collision with a Peterbilt) as would any other sensible person.

and yet you're wrong and showing a lack of comprehension (again)
The repl.y said all it needed to say given the facts were all already presented.
FIRST .... You can AVOID the accident ... AND if the accident DOES happend than a vehicle that TRANSFERS energy will always be better than one that ABSORBS it. That was all clearly explained already.

Lol. Oh, dear is right! Meaning you ignored road and weather conditions and did not consider that sometimes they are a major factor in an accident.

No. I'm afriad YOU did.
You driven a light weight vehicle with modern suspension on ice/snow ?
I have - in competition too.
*I* am talking sense, you have ZERO experience to base your fanboy-ism of your vehicles.
You do them a dis-service by trying to make them king-of-all
My mistake in using sarcasm to emphaise the point.
oh dear

Yes, one of them is a high-compression 472 (10.5:1), 375 hp; 525 ft-lbs torque. And it can easily out accelerate a Smartfortwo!

Again being selective.
Please refrain, it just weakens EVERY opinion you post.
It cannot out accelerate EVERY Smart. It CAN out accelerate the slowest.
BNut as was pointed out to you before the same is true of you take the diesel variant of your beloved.
apples-apples please

It's not more polluting when it's only driven about 1,500 miles a year. Think about that one for awhile.

Wish you had
If you only drive 1500 miles then you wodl only drive 1500 in the other car too.
So the least polluting per mile is ALWAYS the least polluting.
You weren't comparing apples-apples AGAIN

[nota]

Like this '76 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. Remember, it's a low-compression, de-smogged, 5,200-lb car with 2.76 economy gears...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcq0tFE5-Ro

Just like the original road test figures I quoted for the '75 - a low-compression, de-smogged, 5,200-lb car with 2.76 economy gears...?

1975 Cadillac Coupe DeVille 500ci = zero-60mph in 11.9 and S/S 1/4 mile in 18.1

OMG these all-conquering 8.2 litre Cadillac V8s are slower than a 999cc Smart car!

[Coventrysucks]

That earlier post about a horse is becoming more and more relevant with each post.

How do the relative merits of an amusingly under-sized car vs. a humorously over-sized car relate to the core theme of the thread?

[Fleet 500]

and yet you're wrong and showing a lack of comprehension (again)
The repl.y said all it needed to say given the facts were all already presented.
FIRST .... You can AVOID the accident ... AND if the accident DOES happend than a vehicle that TRANSFERS energy will always be better than one that ABSORBS it. That was all clearly explained already.

You didn't say which type of vehicle you would rather be in if a Peterbilt was bearing down on you... big or small. What is your answer?

No. I'm afriad YOU did.
You driven a light weight vehicle with modern suspension on ice/snow ?
I have - in competition too.
*I* am talking sense, you have ZERO experience to base your fanboy-ism of your vehicles.
You do them a dis-service by trying to make them king-of-all
My mistake in using sarcasm to emphaise the point.
oh dear

All I was saying is that any vehicle, no matter how light, can lose control on ice.

Again being selective.
Please refrain, it just weakens EVERY opinion you post.
It cannot out accelerate EVERY Smart. It CAN out accelerate the slowest.
BNut as was pointed out to you before the same is true of you take the diesel variant of your beloved.
apples-apples please

It can out accelerate any stock Smartfortwo.

Wish you had
If you only drive 1500 miles then you wodl only drive 1500 in the other car too.
So the least polluting per mile is ALWAYS the least polluting.
You weren't comparing apples-apples AGAIN

No, I drive my Lincoln more than my Cadillacs because it get better fuel mileage.
And what pollutes less... one of my Caddys at 1,500 miles per year or a more efficient car at 12,000 miles per year?

[Zytek_Fan]

Look like what I found...

Seat Ibiza Cupra TDI

0-60mph takes 7.4s but an average fuel consumption of 55mpg is still possible. The 1.4-litre engine shouldnt be overlooked, offering low 124g/km emissions and a combined fuel consumption figure of 61.

[kingofthering]

What if an accident was due to ice on the road? Being lighter and having good handling and suspension and ABS wouldn't make a difference in that situation.
A lot also depends on how good the driver of the car is.

It will...if handling and suspension don't matter, why don't WRC cars have leaf springs?