I want a Suzuki Alto Works

[LTSmash]

I would love to see a 2-seater 1.0 Litre engine one day, with no room for a trunk.

It exists: the Smart Car.

[wwgkd]

It exists: the Smart Car.

And it sucks. Could have been executed much better.

[cargirl1990]

And it sucks. Could have been executed much better.

i call it a death trap. i don't care how safe they say it is, i still wouldn't drive it.

[G35COUPE]

It exists: the Smart Car.

You are right!

But that smart car looks strange. I was thinking along the lines of a smaller Mazda Miata---almost a go-cart.

[cargirl1990]

You are right!

But that smart car looks strange. I was thinking along the lines of a smaller Mazda Miata---almost a go-cart.

thats becuase it is a go cart.

[P4g4nite]

i call it a death trap. i don't care how safe they say it is, i still wouldn't drive it.

If I was reversing over my children I'd prefer to be driving a Kei car than some SUV or Challenger.

[cargirl1990]

If I was reversing over my children I'd prefer to be driving a Kei car than some SUV or Challenger.

you have a point, its just that im so scared of being hit so hard and flown across the flippin intersection. that would be a really violent accident thats all.

[clutch-monkey]

You are right!

But that smart car looks strange. I was thinking along the lines of a smaller Mazda Miata---almost a go-cart.

austin healey bug eyed sprite + engine conversion
smart roadster?
imo the engines from the smart car would do alright in something old liek the healey.

If I was reversing over my children I'd prefer to be driving a Kei car than some SUV or Challenger.

just get a low car, so you scoop them up/push them back rather than roll over them!

[Matra et Alpine]

i call it a death trap. i don't care how safe they say it is, i still wouldn't drive it.

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

[wwgkd]

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

Those tests don't necessarily cover all situations. Everyone likes to point those out as proof positive that larger vehicles aren't safer, but those tests don't cover what happens if you get hit by one of those larger cars. Yes, a lighter vehicle has an advantage hitting an immoveable object and in many other areas as well, but not everywhere. I am willing to hop into my dad's truck and put you in a smart and we can have a head on while going 30mph each. You up for it? In real life big vehicles (and I should stress heavily built, not just big) have a lot of advantages over smaller vehicles when they meet. But I aknowledge many disadvantages, too so lets not jump all over me for them.

Really it's not the safety of the smart that's my main problem (I'd drive a caterham afterall,) it's the overall crappiness and the fact that something that slow runs on high octane. Plus, driving in normal traffic over here in the country rather than just sticking to a large city is resulting in some people I know getting as low as 33 mpg in thier smarts, while having to run on high octane.

[LeonOfTheDead]

You are right!

But that smart car looks strange. I was thinking along the lines of a smaller Mazda Miata---almost a go-cart.

smart Roadster (EDIT: clutch...)

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

that Chrysler Voyager isn't the new one, but the 2007 model, which in turn was still based on the old 1999 model which scored a similar point.

[Matra et Alpine]

Those tests don't necessarily cover all situations. Everyone likes to point those out as proof positive that larger vehicles aren't safer, but those tests don't cover what happens if you get hit by one of those larger cars. Yes, a lighter vehicle has an advantage hitting an immoveable object and in many other areas as well, but not everywhere.

Hittin an immovable object impacts the same forces as hitting a moving object at the same combined speed

I am willing to hop into my dad's truck and put you in a smart and we can have a head on while going 30mph each.

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 )

You up for it? In real life big vehicles (and I should stress heavily built, not just big) have a lot of advantages over smaller vehicles when they meet. But I aknowledge many disadvantages, too so lets not jump all over me for them.

No problem. it's best any to search the forum cw, we've gone over this in great depth in the past. Absorption of energy is the key thing followed up by an exceptional strong passenger CELL. Old designs typicall have very strong girder construction. Which don't absorb energy, and instead transmit it to the weakest parts and so you can get bulkhed and internal component movement that injures the occupants.

overall crappiness

Have you been in or seen one ?
THe interior is better than a Caterham for sure
Seriously though, it's in the uppor range of interior quality.

and the fact that something that slow runs on high octane.

Well you coudl tune the engine to run on lower quality petrol no doubt and get half the fuel consumption
First, it's not that "slow" and high octane isn't a "real" problem.
Remember it's a person transporter .. not a sportscar.
... UNLESS you guys get the Brabus versions Nephew had Brabus coupe and whilst I could outdrag him and get to a higher speed, then on roads it was a different matter being driven hard It's lightness makes up for lack of power/torque

Plus, driving in normal traffic over here in the country rather than just sticking to a large city is resulting in some people I know getting as low as 33 mpg in thier smarts, while having to run on high octane.

WHAT ? Man they are needing to get it to a mechanic who knows about cars. There is something BADLY wrong there. THe Brabus woudl give 45mpg when it was being thrashed all the time and 75 mpg when it was treated with kid gloves Have you got a link to a dealr over there so I can look at the spec they are selling ?

that Chrysler Voyager isn't the new one, but the 2007 model, which in turn was still based on the old 1999 model which scored a similar point.

aha, that makes sense. But I hope the point isn't lost

[LeonOfTheDead]

aha, that makes sense. But I hope the point isn't lost

I'm the first supporter of lighter and smaller vehicles.

[wwgkd]

Hittin an immovable object impacts the same forces as hitting a moving object at the same combined speed

Yes, obviously the forces will be the same. See below for what I was reffering to.

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 )

I don't know what the crash rating is, but in point of fact we have been in several accidents and it usually results in the other vehicle being totaled (or leaving a large dent in that one cliff) and we have yet to be injured or have to repair the vehicle.

No problem. it's best any to search the forum cw, we've gone over this in great depth in the past. Absorption of energy is the key thing followed up by an exceptional strong passenger CELL. Old designs typicall have very strong girder construction. Which don't absorb energy, and instead transmit it to the weakest parts and so you can get bulkhed and internal component movement that injures the occupants.

Yes, I understand that. Fortuneately for us, it was the other vehicles which provided the crumple zones, so we were fine. If we had hit a bridge girder at high speed the results would have been different, I'm sure, but as I said advantages and disadvantages.

Have you been in or seen one ?
THe interior is better than a Caterham for sure
Seriously though, it's in the uppor range of interior quality.

Yes, as I mentioned I know people who own them, I have seen them. I have also ridden in a caterham. My taste in cars generally ignores interior quality as you may have surmised by the fact that I'm a big fan of old brittish roadsters. Fit and finish is not high on my list of priorities and the reasons I think it's crappy have nothing at all to do with this, they are in fact those that I listed above.

Well you coudl tune the engine to run on lower quality petrol no doubt and get half the fuel consumption
First, it's not that "slow" and high octane isn't a "real" problem.
Remember it's a person transporter .. not a sportscar.
... UNLESS you guys get the Brabus versions Nephew had Brabus coupe and whilst I could outdrag him and get to a higher speed, then on roads it was a different matter being driven hard It's lightness makes up for lack of power/torque

I generally consider anything that much slower than my grandmothers lincoln to be slow. If it holds traffic up that much during normal driving I consider it slow. Yes, there are slower cars out there, but I also consider them slow. I consider my jeep slow and it easily smokes a smart.

WHAT ? Man they are needing to get it to a mechanic who knows about cars. There is something BADLY wrong there. THe Brabus woudl give 45mpg when it was being thrashed all the time and 75 mpg when it was treated with kid gloves Have you got a link to a dealr over there so I can look at the spec they are selling ?

aha, that makes sense. But I hope the point isn't lost

No links, but their numbers are roughly backed up by a car and driver test, which I can probably dig up a link for, if that would help.


Edit: http://www.caranddriver.com/features...s_land-feature
There's no stats page, but towards the end of the article they do run down some stuff, including mileage of 37mpg on the final page.

And in this test they got 32mpg: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...oupe-road_test

[Matra et Alpine]

I don't know what the crash rating is, but in point of fact we have been in several accidents and it usually results in the other vehicle being totaled (or leaving a large dent in that one cliff) and we have yet to be injured or have to repair the vehicle.
..
Yes, I understand that. Fortuneately for us, it was the other vehicles which provided the crumple zones, so we were fine. If we had hit a bridge girder at high speed the results would have been different, I'm sure, but as I said advantages and disadvantages.

Yeah we're at cross purposes I think cg !
Safety isn't about repeariable, it's about the occupants and ONLY the occupants. Yes, it generally means that a compact car is written off where a tank might just need a bumper straightened out. Once everyones out of old tanks though the benefit is much more positive.
As you acknolwedged, if you hit soemthgin stronger then you it's not such a nice story for dad's truck and occupants.

crappy have nothing at all to do with this, they are in fact those that I listed above.

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 !!

I generally consider anything that much slower than my grandmothers lincoln to be slow. If it holds traffic up that much during normal driving I consider it slow.

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

No links, but their numbers are roughly backed up by a car and driver test, which I can probably dig up a link for, if that would help.

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