2008 Smart Fortwo: Smart Car...Stupid Transmission
If you're thinking of buying a Smart Fortwo when it goes on sale in a few weeks I would caution you on a couple items.
No, it's not the safety aspect, though I'm sure most Smart doubters will use that as their primary reason for avoidiing it ("I ain't drivin' that thang! An SUV will squish it like a bug!"). The car's "safety cell" is quite impressive and the testing procedures I've seen suggest it can take quite a beating.
No, it's not a lack of space. Sure, it only seats two, but those two people have plenty of room. It's actually a bit surreal when you drive the Smart for a awhile and then get out and look at it. "Was I just driving that tiny car at 70 mph? No way!" The car doesn't feel small -- at all -- from behind the wheel.
It's not even a horsepower issue. It ain't no Veyron, but keeping up with traffic is not a problem. I was actually passing people on PCH without needing substantially more time/space than I normally require. The three-cylinder, 70 hp engine moves the 1,700-pound Fortwo with relative ease, all while attaining 33/44 mpg.
No, none of these items are issues. But the following items...
First, not to put too fine a point on it, but the transmission sucks. It's not a letdown. It's not a disappointment. It sucks. I should explain that it uses an electrohydraulic clutch, which means no torque converter and no third pedal. But, if you think the SMG transmission in the last M3 (a similar design) had hesitation issues during each shift, this transmission needs a few weeks advanced notice if you want the shifts to arrive on time.
But, believe it or not, that's not the worst part. No, the worst part is the "engagement" (I use that term lightly) between the engine and the transmission. Essentially, every time you come to a stop it seems the engine might stall, because the clutch waits until the last possible moment to let go of the flywheel. Pulling away from a stop results in a similarly "lurchy" experience.
So, it's at its worst whenever you stop and/or start.
And don't forget -- IT'S A "CITY CAR!"
Other issues include the thin tires that catch every rut in the road, the large vehicle profile (relative to its size and weight) that catches every crosswind (we had a well-timed Santa Anna condition in Los Angeles to expose this trait), and the seat-to-pedal-to-steering wheel relationship that had either my legs folded up or my arms stretched like Mr. Fantastic's. Another, taller staffer had no issue with the seating arrangement, but he hated the angle of the brake pedal and their somewhat grappy nature.
Bottom line, it's a low-priced car ($12K to $18K) with high fuel mileage and easy parking. In theory that's an ideal combination in an "ever-more crowded, one-hundred-dollars-per-barrel-of-oil" world. Me? I'm shorting my Penske (official U.S. distributor of Smart) stock.
Posted by Karl Nov 29, 2007 7:00 am
Permalink
Categories: Smart Car | Fuel Efficiency
|
|
Sounds like Penske and SMART have some refinement work to do on the trans. Also sounds like the engine is simply too small for the vehicle (I've driven tiny-engined aspires and metros, which got no better mileage than slightly larger corollas, etc. simply because the tiny engines needed to be "floored" just to keep up with traffic!). Thanks for the heads up, folks !
|
|
 | |
jordanw
- Nov 29, 2007 9:31 am
(#6 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
For $10k, you can get a brand new Aveo 5, a Kia Rio, or a Hyundai Accent. All not great cars, but can carry 4 people and have trunks and decent transmissions. Heck for $2k more than the lowest model SMART you can buy a brand new 3-door Rabbit or Civic Coupe! Both excellent cars that can carry more people and more fun to drive!
I honestly don't see why people would buy this when you can spend better money elsewhere!
|
|
| |
|
|
Let's not forget the size advantage, folks, which is a huge benefit in some of the more crowded parts of the country, especially if the car can be parked nose in on the streets.
|
|
| |
|
|
What is this hangup about premium gas. Regular gas costs $3.30. Premium is 20 cents more. Whoopty-freaking-do. With a 10 gallon tank you're looking at $33 v. 35. This isn't 1988 with $1 premium and $0.80 regular. 20 cents is about 6% more. You can use regular gas but it will hurt engine performance and lower mileage. Is it really that big of a deal?
Say you're getting 40 mpg on a tank. That's 400 miles and per week you drive 250. So that's 13000 miles a year. Or 325 gallons. Total gas cost per year with regular is 1072. With premium it's only 1137! 65 bucks causes this kind of moaning?
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Nov 29, 2007 10:23 am
(#9 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
blueguydotcom
i think the problem with the idea of priemum. Is that this is supposdly an economy car. So you would think regular fuel. alot of people think preimum/high octane fuel, for ethier priemum or performance cars. Not one of which this car appears to be.
|
|
| |
|
|
Wouldn't this car be better (or best) as a plug in electric - with maybe better tires too? I think the only advantage to it being gas powered over electric would be for range. Who wants to drive this thing any great distance? It's hardly a long range, road trip, touring mobile.
|
|
| |
|
|
I want to see some dyno runs (torque curves) of that triple engine (can't find anything on smartusa.com). I wonder how it compares to Triumph motorcycles' 1050cc triple or another motorcycle 3 cylinder engine from Benelli. I'm sure there's differences (weight of vehicle, idle set much lower than a mo-cycle, etc.), but I'm just curious if it was ever considered to source the engine elsewhere. Heck, throw a turbocharged Triumph engine in that mofo.
To me, this smartcar is $2500 too expensive. Gimme a super low base model with a real manual 5 speed for $9k and I might think about it. Or, I'll just pick one up as a toy when smart usa goes bust.
|
|
| |
mnorm1
- Nov 29, 2007 11:31 am
(#12 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
Historically this car has not been profitable.
So far I haven't seen anything to make me think this will change.
To me, it seems expensive for what you get. $14.4k buys a new Corolla with a manual and gets 28/37 mpg; $15.2k buys a new Corolla with automatc and gets 26/35. Corolla type cars make a lot more sense to me than the smart.
|
|
| |
|
|
norm, The Corolla isn't quirky, fun, different or extremely city friendly. this is an urban car.
opt, sorry but with gas prices so high a difference at fill-up of maybe $2, is not worth whining about. When reg to premium was a 20% difference, people had room to pause. Now that the two are essentially the same price, it's just not worth the energy to complain about reg v. prem.
|
|
| |
|
|
It always surprises me how many people really want this car to fail. I heard all the same arguements a couple years ago when it came to Canada and they were all proven wrong. The car was and still is a big hit.
I don't know anyone who cross shopped one with a Corolla or a Korean econo car. In the market they are polar opposites. The Smart is bought by people who want to stand out or want to make a green statement. Not just in fuel economy but in driving the minimum car that you need.
I do agree with a couple points. I do not like the transmission either. It really needs a true manual (and maybe an optional 5 speed auto). I've been told by Smart owners that you get used to it and it's not really that bad but I still don't like it.
Also I can't believe they are taking away that great little diesel. It really adds character to the car and I doubt the gas engine will be able to match the 3.5 to 4.5L/100km that the diesel gets. Add to that premium is 25 cent a litre ($1.00/gal) more then diesel and it really takes away the cars mileage advantage.
|
|
| |
|
|
Albemarle County, VA United States of America |
|
|
This car isn't going anywhere, once the new "cuteness" factor wears off. Just like the VW Bug and PT Cruiser have faded into the background.
As has been mentioned, you can get a 4-door sedan with a trunk for about the same money and gas mileage. What's the point then? Even in Manhattan I can find (with a little diligence) free parking on the street for a normal sized car. I haven't used a parking lot or garage there in ages.
|
|
| |
dancote
- Nov 29, 2007 12:32 pm
(#16 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
While I appreciate that the smart car is not for everyone, I fail to understand why some folks need to question why someone would buy this car.
I'm not buying it to save money on gas. I'm not trying to save the environment. I'm not getting it to make a statement. I don't contend that it makes economic or practical sense.
For me it's a lifestyle choice. I've fortunately reached a stage in my life where I can afford a fun, frivolous expense on occasion and this happens to be my latest indulgence. I bought my wife a Miata for the same reason - so she could enjoy a toy that she deserves.
Yeah we have a (very old) pickup for the odd run to the dump, Costco, Home Depot, etc. We also have a small car for normal, daily use. But these aren't for "fun". They're appliances or tools for everyday life like a refrigerator, a toothbrush and indoor plumbing.
I've had many "sensible" vehicles in my life. I can honestly say that I don't think of them (if I can remember them at all) with the same fondness as my first motorcycle (an Indian), my first sports car (Datsun 240Z) or my first superbike (Honda 750 four).
You only go around once. Have some fun along the way.
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Nov 29, 2007 12:34 pm
(#17 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
blueguydotcom
i agree with you.
at 80cents a gallon, a 1.00 priemum fuel was a 25% mark up.
at 3.00 dolalrs a gallon, 3.20 priemum fuel is about 6.5% mark up.
Its the idea behind it that is off-putting, not the actual fact.
what is disapponting, is that while this car weighs 1/4th that of the hybrid taheo, it only gets about double the city mpg.
And i'd still worry about being squashed like a bug. I know they have that test were they run it into a wall.
But thats using the weight of JUST the smart. Imagine getting plowed into a wall, by that taheo that weighs 4 times as much. Which car would you want to be in?
|
|
| |
|
|
They should just have used a regular 5- or 6- spd manual on this car......or a least made it an option. I just don't know why they went for an auto! Beats me.........
|
|
| |
|
|
I understand the "cute" factor. I admire well engineered cars that are small. Many time I prefer them. Always been a big fan of the Miata, Mini, etc.
When I was a kid I wanted a MGB so bad I could taste it (please exempt from the well engineered comment above). But this thing is neither cute or well engineered. It doesn't look fun to drive, and from the reviews in addition to Karl's take it's transmission is pathetic.
Yawn, is my general reaction. Make it look good, make it compelling to drive and maybe I'll pay attention.
Not even a MT. Please!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
"But thats using the weight of JUST the smart. Imagine getting plowed into a wall, by that taheo that weighs 4 times as much. Which car would you want to be in?"
Probably still the Tahoe, although it would be much more likely to roll over after an impact of that magnitude. However, it would be an easier impact on the Smart if that 70 mph closing-speed collision you are referring to had been into a Tahoe instead of a wall. The Tahoe would have crumpled and absorbed some of the impact energy, plus it would have been pushed a substantial distance. The wall offered up virtually no energy absorption.
|
|
| |
dancote
- Nov 29, 2007 6:31 pm
(#21 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
From: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/carfinder/article3199418.ece
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
"I was surprised to find that Sir Stirling Moss, a living national treasure, has something in common with a mere mortal like me: "I much prefer having a small car and driving the arse off it."
Which he then proceeded to do, with me as passenger, in a Smart ForTwo. We took it round the handling track at Mercedes-Benz World, at the old Brooklands circuit in Surrey. He pushed it, but Smart stayed out of trouble. He hasn't lost his touch.
Stirling had come to pick up a new Mark 2 Smart for himself and Lady Moss: "The understeer's almost gone, the steering's jolly nice and it's great improvement – but when they make a manual, that'll be fun." ... We emerged from the Smart with a whiff of warm rubber in the air.
For me, it was more disconcerting to meet someone who retired in the year I was born. Stirling, now a sprightly 78 years of age, last raced in 1962, retiring after a nasty accident cut his career short at 32."
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Nov 29, 2007 8:20 pm
(#22 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
bimmer. I have no doubts of the strength of the smart. all the crash data looks good.
However, all of that comes at a price. That energy in an accident needs to go somewhere. I was running into a tree. i'd probably rather be in the smart. less weight to smart. if i'm getting ran into, i'd probably perfer to be in a bigger car. Bigger does not mean better.
if its a badly designed big car, then its a false sense of security. But if given the chocie of 2 safe cars, one the smart, one something bigger. i'd go with bigger.
|
|
| |
|
|
Around me the surchage for premium is closer to 30 cents a gallon.
Thing is, though, people already see gas as expensive enough. Regular is 2.99 and they wince. Premium is 3.29 and they really wince.
In this class, where the whole point is economy, that's a big negative.
I realize this is mostly psychological, but with the Smart you get a 2 seater and don't really have lower operating costs compared to several competent 4-5 seaters. I'd pick the Fit.
|
|
| |
mnorm1
- Nov 30, 2007 1:49 pm
(#24 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
blueguy,
smart fortwo; quirky - yes
fun - not so much, from the reviews I've seen
different - yes
extremely city friendly - I don't see it as much friendlier than Corolla, Fit, Versa, etc.
In the end, to me, the price is too high for what you get.
I think it will be a fad/fashion statement for a while, but not a long term success. But bring 'em, and let's have the market decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
- Edmunds Consumer Comparison Test: Economy Cars May 15, 2008
- 2009 Acura TSX: A Really-Really-Really Good Honda May 14, 2008
- Talk Back Tuesday: Chrysler refools-ur, refuels America May 13, 2008
- Ford's SYNC: A Look at the Future in a Car from the Past May 12, 2008
- April's Automotive Sales Numbers: Not a Pretty Picture May 9, 2008
- MPG Smackdown: Focus vs Jetta vs Prius vs Smart May 8, 2008
- Cars that Jumped the Shark: Mazda Miata May 7, 2008
- Talk Back Tuesday: Will Plug-In Hybrids Really Work? May 6, 2008
- Legend of the Motorcycle: Pebble Beach without Posers May 5, 2008
- Top 10 Fuel Efficient SUVs for 2008: CAFE Can't Kill 'Em May 2, 2008
|
|
|
|
