Tiny Smart car gets crash test kudos

[Ed753]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

It's no different than someone buying a Miata as their sole car. The fortwo is meant for urban runs, not for the family trip to Costco or Disneyland. It's a two-seater, what kind of passenger space do you think is there? A Corvette only holds two people, the insurance is more and the fuel economy is worse. Maybe we should tell GM to stop making them. Oh, wait, they're fun to drive. Well, perhaps to some people the smart is, too. The fortwo is meant to be a 2nd or 3rd car to be used as the commuter car since it's a waste of gas, space and seating to take the 7-passenger CUV 3 miles to work. It's not for everyone. Also, you can't compare it to a 5-passenger wagon, that's like comparing it to a Corvette because it has two seats also. Kind of an unfair comparison, and unequal. It is what it is. Don't buy one.

I think its a given a Corvette is not on any family "cost savings" plan, its pure pleasure, just ask DuSpinnst, it was his commuter for a week. How much is one savings driving this 3 miles to work, while another car sit unused in the garage? How much is one wasting driving a EXCURSION 3 miles to work!? (52/weeks x 6 miles a day x 5 days = 1,560 miles / 8 miles to the gallon = 195 gallons of gas x $4.00/gallon = $780/year)

Truth be told, most of our problems would be solved if we all only lived 3 miles from work, that is a whole other debate ......

Originally Posted by Saturn69

Ah, I love the smell of sensationalistic B.S. in the forum. Maybe those swerving cars should be paying attention to the road and the other drivers, eh? Whatever a 'spec' is, he/she was choosing to go 60...the smart will do 80 all day long, it runs on the Autobahn, remember? Completely run through it? Please. Let's get the motorcycles of the roads, too, while were at it. It's amazing to me have afraid people are about this car, and how much B.S. they can fling at it just because it's small. Thank goodness your girlfriends/wives/significant others/weekend hoochies aren't fixated on size......

The motorcycles are usually doing 80, so I they are on their own, and there is no "perceived" safety crumple zone.

Originally Posted by Saturn69

If people hate it that much, why are they even reading a thread about it? It doesn't affect them. This is getting so stupid. Small cars are here to stay, get used to it. Maybe $5 or $6 a gallon gas, $7 or $8 dollar diesel and $8 a gallon milk will make people wake up and put their Freudian size complexes aside long enough to think.....oh who the hell am I kidding. We deserve the crap we get since we aren't smart enough to unlearn our behavior.

I guess the fact of the headlines is what incenses me the most "Smart car gets crash test kudos" you may be "SMART" but many are not, and headlines like that would have you believe one could actually survive a crash, much-less have any recognizable body parts left.

[MonaroSS]

Q. What do the 3 cars below have in common with a power pole, or a tree or a concrete bridge railing post?

A. If you hit them in any of these doing 40mph your are almost certainly going to be dead.






People here are way underestimating how dangerous ALL cars are, and that includes SUV's, in any head on accident with any car. None offers walk away protection and most people in a head on die, regardless of car or car size and weight. The fact is most people die in single car accidents and going 40mph to zero in a Suburban or Smart or Trans Am is going to kill you. End of story.

What people think of as head-on accidents are actually usually off-set collisions from which vehicles veer off, spin, roll, collide further with roadside objects etc and it is the luck of the draw how you come off injury wise if you survive at all. A Smart hitting a Suburban in an offset swipe could have the Suburban veer into a tree and it's occupants all die while the Smart bounces into bushes and the occupants survive.

Regardless of any car's ability to survive any appreciable decelerating frontal impact, of which they all fair badly, the best defence is offence and that means primary safety being the ability to avoid the collision in the first place. Given that you will likely die in any vehicle in any head-on then the safer car and driver is the car and driver that is capable of avoiding the collision, either by superior vehicle dynamics or driver skill or both. Driving is a risk/reward equation that many take for granted or ill assess the risk and the rewards.

In real life a good driver in a small agile car about to collide head-on with a soccer mum in a Tahoe will likely survive by simply swerving out of the way of the Tahoe which due to the panicked response of the soccer mum is about to swerve into a roll-over killing her and her kids.

That's the sad truth about car safety...

BTW, even though the flimsy fibreglass bodied Corvette above would have way lower primary and secondary safety than the Smart, and I would likely be killed in any serious accident in it, it's what I would choose to drive.

[Ed753]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

What people think of as head-on accidents are actually usually off-set collisions from which vehicles veer off, spin, roll, collide further with roadside objects etc and it is the luck of the draw how you come off injury wise if you survive at all.

I Agree 100%

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

A Smart hitting a Suburban in an offset swipe could have the Suburban veer into a tree and it's occupants all die while the Smart bounces into bushes and the occupants survive.

Again, I Agree 100%, HOWEVER what if either of the cars get punted back into the opposing traffic!? I like my chances much better in the Tahoe.

[CJ Thunder]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

Yes, because a Tahoe can come through that without a scratch. Are people really that......oh, never mind.

OK because I say I want to see destruction of a car that means I don't understand physics. ok buddy whatever you think. I thought that was a guy thing, explosions and what not.

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

Q. What do the 3 cars below have in common with a power pole, or a tree or a concrete bridge railing post?

A. If you hit them in any of these doing 40mph your are almost certainly going to be dead.






People here are way underestimating how dangerous ALL cars are, and that includes SUV's, in any head on accident with any car. None offers walk away protection and most people in a head on die, regardless of car or car size and weight. The fact is most people die in single car accidents and going 40mph to zero in a Suburban or Smart or Trans Am is going to kill you. End of story.

What people think of as head-on accidents are actually usually off-set collisions from which vehicles veer off, spin, roll, collide further with roadside objects etc and it is the luck of the draw how you come off injury wise if you survive at all. A Smart hitting a Suburban in an offset swipe could have the Suburban veer into a tree and it's occupants all die while the Smart bounces into bushes and the occupants survive.

Regardless of any car's ability to survive any appreciable decelerating frontal impact, of which they all fair badly, the best defence is offence and that means primary safety being the ability to avoid the collision in the first place. Given that you will likely die in any vehicle in any head-on then the safer car and driver is the car and driver that is capable of avoiding the collision, either by superior vehicle dynamics or driver skill or both. Driving is a risk/reward equation that many take for granted or ill assess the risk and the rewards.

In real life a good driver in a small agile car about to collide head-on with a soccer mum in a Tahoe will likely survive by simply swerving out of the way of the Tahoe which due to the panicked response of the soccer mum is about to swerve into a roll-over killing her and her kids.

That's the sad truth about car safety...

BTW, even though the flimsy fibreglass bodied Corvette above would have way lower primary and secondary safety than the Smart, and I would likely be killed in any serious accident in it, it's what I would choose to drive.

Saturns do!

[gaffo]

Originally Posted by EatonISgay

Now if they could just do something about the warranty, the lack of any cargo or people carrying ability (I get its a city car! But it doesn't live up to expectations at its current size.), and the dismal fuel economy for its size I might be impressed. That and its overpriced for what you get, and there are too few dealers around. Buts its cute! Awwww.

exactly! I get 38 combined in my manual Yaris same as the Samrt car - plus twice the interior room. I've already hauled 75 - 40pound - bags of garden soil with my hatch.

car cost me 13.3 k: smart is at least that price if my more!

Yaris can do interstate travel and I got a ticket going 90 in it. It will go up to 120 actually - though I wuld not do that myself.

Smart tops out around 90 mph. but I'd not go over 80 in that thing.

of course 80 is pretty much all you need in the real world.

i'd like to see the IQ here myself. and the new fiat 500.

[gaffo]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

So is an SUV. It just depends on the driver.

roll rate of SUV is astonomical. Happens all the time from overstearing to aviod obsticles on interstate.

one SUV accidents they are called and many people get hurt or die from them rolling over.

yet knowbody talks about this dangerous trait of SUV and trucks!!

why is that?

[E. Haskell]

Originally Posted by Ed753

Which leads to another fact, for most this will be a 2nd car in a 1-car family, or 3rd car in a 2-car family.

In summary:
PROS:

• Savings gas $25/month.

CONS:

• Additional car payment = $270/month.
• Additional insurance = $80/month.
• Lack of usability, no people or cargo storage.
• Safety, or lack there-of …..

Buying a smart to save money just isn't a smart move. If one can make it their only car it will save money, but how many people are going to have a smart as their sole means of transportation? I'd say not too many considering it only has seating for 2, practically zero luggage space and isn't a great highway cruiser.

However, if fitting in small parking spaces is your mission, the smart is the right tool for the job.

[E. Haskell]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

In real life a good driver in a small agile car about to collide head-on with a soccer mum in a Tahoe will likely survive by simply swerving out of the way of the Tahoe which due to the panicked response of the soccer mum is about to swerve into a roll-over killing her and her kids.

In real life a good driver in a 1989 Geo Metro can avoid many incidents!

However, stats are stats and according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2004, SUVs had less occupant fatalities compared to small cars. The occupant fatality per 100,000 registered vehicles was 16.85 for subcompacts, 17.76 for compacts and 12.34 for large SUVs. I have no idea what the occupant fatality rate would be for cars the size of the smart. That doesn't mean bigger is always better because midsize/full size actually had lower rates (11.xx), but I think having more mass surrounding you might come in handy.

I'm not saying the smart is unsafe - it may very well be.