I want a Suzuki Alto Works

[wwgkd]

So the interior's fine then ?
I was surprised that both those reviews were positive on the seats adn interior in general. I imagained on US roads it woudl get slated !!

No, it's pretty nice for those who care. But so are many of the other cars for the same money.

Does it really hold traffic up though ?
OR is it being bought by "greenies" who dive like grannies anyway ?
I guess I'm ruined having blasted the Brabus tuned coupe !!!!!
AND definately not a car for all purposes

Well, I've never followed behind the one guy that I know pretty well who has one, but he's definitely not the type to drive slowly. The car was a gift from his parents or he'd have had something else. The ones I have followed have mostly slowed down on sections where there are hills, which is pretty much the whole area aside from downtown, or when starting and stopping constantly, which is all of downtown. Course "downtown" moscow is less than a mile long.

The brabus smart is one of those cars that I'm embarassed to admit that I'd like to drive just to see what it's like.

Yeah thanks for those.
Interesting read.
The latter one might have explained consumption concerns tho' "Perhaps that's the upshot of driving perpetually at 84 mph"
and in town it isn't the "hybrid" one with the engine start/stop.

But worst case 35-ish is still damn good for most cars in the US

Yeah, the way you drive makes a huge difference (car and driver often has a lead foot,) and should be considered in depth before people go out and investing in a new car trying to save a few mpg. But their numbers were close to what the people I know where getting, and they don't usually drive 84mph. It's also true that 35 is far from horrible mileage, but considering the sacrifices you make for the car, I don't think it's worth it.

Guy down the street has a golf tdi which I really like for something economical and practical. He's done some work on it too, so slightly better mileage, but more power and more fun than stock. Still, even stock it's no slouch and I'd consider it a much better alternative to many of the cars that are so popular with the ecomentalists.

[cargirl1990]

The Smart cars meet the NCAP crash standards in Europe
With a rating of 4 stars for the occupants it's a lot better than some "larger/safer" cars/SUVs eg Chrysler PT Cruiser only got 3 and latest Voyager 1 - yes ONE

Thought you shoudl have known by now that size doesn't matter

yeah i know. it just that you'll go flying across the intersection.

[Badsight]

You can't get away from the physics.
IF your dad's truck say has a 1 star NCP rating then you WILL receive injury and I woudl NOT ( OK given percentages of variability may affect it if we did it 100 times

in a crash , the lighter car will get imploded by the heavier car . crash ratings cant alter that

the speeds crash testing is done only makes them valid for town speed impacts . out on the highway at 100 + km/h , the smart car is a death trap if you get smacked into by a heavy car

[cargirl1990]

in a crash , the lighter car will get imploded by the heavier car . crash ratings cant alter that

the speeds crash testing is done only makes them valid for town speed impacts . out on the highway at 100 + km/h , the smart car is a death trap if you get smacked into by a heavy car

that was my point and your dead on. Smart cars will have more momentum once their hit at a reasonable amount of speed by a considerably larger vehicle.

[Badsight]

but considering how little amount of material there is in a Smart Car , they DO perform well in crash testing

just dont ever try it for real

[Matra et Alpine]

In heavy/high speed crashes ALL cars can get torn apart.
THAT's why most countries do NOT try to ensure survivability at 100mph head-ons.
THere's an implicit understanding that a driver will be trying to brake so speed will be reduced.
We can't mitigate for all possibilities ( like Massa's spring hit )

Being light, then the "advantage" is that once a lot of energy is absorbed by the design it then does "bounce off". Again lots of energy dissipated so the momentum transferred is a LOT lower.

Ther's lots of confusion over what happens in an accident regarding strength, absorption and momentum trasnfer.
Rather than goign through ALL the physics on it, a vide ...
</title></head>"+"<body onload='if (!window.parent.StateManager || window.parent.StateManager.frameSaving) return;"+"window.parent.StateManager.restore(decod eURIComponent(document.body.innerText));'>"+encode URIComponent(state)+"</body></html>");h.clo
70 miles per hour straight into a concrete wall.
Looking at it, then I'd certainly expect to see lower limb injuries, but the rest looks amazingly intact .... ( you'd still not have survived it though as your brain will have foudn it's way out your eye sockets )

Now if mom&pops are running a 5 year olf F150 then consider this ...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB0araA0T_k"]YouTube - Crash Test Ford F150[/ame]
As a static impact I doubt this will be at 70mp and more likely at the standard 50 or below.
OUCH. Whcih one "Looked" like it woudl survive before the impact ??

US commentary ... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COGBQ7QXqyc&NR=1"]YouTube - Crash Test for Dummies[/ame]

We woudl all agree I'm sure that whilst crash tests are "useful" they aren't the whoel story.
eg Whilst crumple zones are a great idea for that first impact, if it's a multiple impact situation then on the second hit there IS no crumple zone. If we could determine when and what kind of accident we were going to have and pick the right car for that day then life woudl be safer for sure

[wwgkd]

In heavy/high speed crashes ALL cars can get torn apart.
THAT's why most countries do NOT try to ensure survivability at 100mph head-ons.
THere's an implicit understanding that a driver will be trying to brake so speed will be reduced.
We can't mitigate for all possibilities ( like Massa's spring hit )

Being light, then the "advantage" is that once a lot of energy is absorbed by the design it then does "bounce off". Again lots of energy dissipated so the momentum transferred is a LOT lower.

Ther's lots of confusion over what happens in an accident regarding strength, absorption and momentum trasnfer.
Rather than goign through ALL the physics on it, a vide ...
</title></head>"+"<body onload='if (!window.parent.StateManager || window.parent.StateManager.frameSaving) return;"+"window.parent.StateManager.restore(decod eURIComponent(document.body.innerText));'>"+encode URIComponent(state)+"</body></html>");h.clo
70 miles per hour straight into a concrete wall.
Looking at it, then I'd certainly expect to see lower limb injuries, but the rest looks amazingly intact .... ( you'd still not have survived it though as your brain will have foudn it's way out your eye sockets )

Now if mom&pops are running a 5 year olf F150 then consider this ...
YouTube - Crash Test Ford F150
As a static impact I doubt this will be at 70mp and more likely at the standard 50 or below.
OUCH. Whcih one "Looked" like it woudl survive before the impact ??

US commentary ... YouTube - Crash Test for Dummies

We woudl all agree I'm sure that whilst crash tests are "useful" they aren't the whoel story.
eg Whilst crumple zones are a great idea for that first impact, if it's a multiple impact situation then on the second hit there IS no crumple zone. If we could determine when and what kind of accident we were going to have and pick the right car for that day then life woudl be safer for sure

Thanks for the videos, but I plan on driving an abrams. If anyone survives the crash, I can always give them a nice safe ride to the hospital on my abrams. It even has the optional "child scooper."

[Matra et Alpine]

You sure you'll be able to keep it on the road ?

Check out the RX-8 .... an M1 reversed into it

[wwgkd]

You sure you'll be able to keep it on the road ?

Check out the RX-8 .... an M1 reversed into it

Hey, getting stuck is half the fun of going offroad. Bet the owner of the RX-8 was mad.

[Black Edition]

You sure you'll be able to keep it on the road ?

Check out the RX-8 .... an M1 reversed into it

hey, i can understand how those tanks got stuck in the mud or fell off a small drop off or even reversing into a car. but how the hell was that tank able to get over the other tank?

[wwgkd]

hey, i can understand how those tanks got stuck in the mud or fell off a small drop off or even reversing into a car. but how the hell was that tank able to get over the other tank?

Great departure angles and a horrible view out the back. Plus bored or tired soldiers do stupid things, same as anyone else, but with better toys.