I have a confession to make: I officially hate the Smart car.
I don't use that word lightly, and in today's world it takes a special kind of car to earn the "H" word from me, as almost every car is at least "fine" and the majority of them are "good" or better.
Maybe that's why I hate the Smart car so much. It's not even mediocre.
I drove home the Brabus version of a Smart convertible last week, and before I was 5 miles into my 50-mile (each way) commute I was annoyed at myself for picking the vehicle to take home. See, when you have a 5- or 10- or even 50-mile round-trip commute you can put up with a pretty rotten vehicle. But when I pick a car to take home I've committed to at least a 100-mile journey before taking a single side trip or wrong turn. That's a long distance over which to experience a bad car.
And make no mistake, these are just terrible cars. Do you want to talk ride quality? Do you want to talk seating position and ergonomics? Do you want to talk power? Do you want to talk stability? And let's please not talk about the transmission.
Actually, it doesn't really matter what you want to talk about because they are all atrocious in the Smart. Just to be clear: they aren't bad, or sub-par or disappointing. They're atrocious.
I should specify that I don't hate the car simply because it's the antithesis of a powerful performance car or high-end luxury car. The Honda Insight is the antithesis of those vehicles, and I like it. Same with the Jetta Diesel. BTW, both of those cars get better fuel mileage than a Smart, too.
Which brings up the worst part of the Smart: it's not just atrocious, it's unnecessarily atrocious. You can get roughly the same fuel mileage, plus twice the seating capacity, better ride quality, better ergonmics, quicker (and smoother) acceleration, better high-speed stability and (in my not-so-humble opinion) better styling FOR THE SAME OR LESS MONEY in several other vehicles.
Do you know what it means when you can buy multiple vehicles with universal advantages at a cheaper price than a specific car? It means that specific car has no reason to exist. And please don't start in with the "It's not supposed to be an exciting, compelling car, it's supposed to be a city car for people who need something small to get around in!" You mean like a cheaper, better, Hyundai Accent? Or Chevy Aveo? Or Toyota Yaris? Once again, better cars in every way (often by huge margins) compared to the Smart.
I'm not writing this just to be mean or to pick on the Smart. I have the unique opportunity to communicate with a large number of people who are often in a car-buying mood, so I say all this for your benefit. Please, no matter how much you think your situation lines up with the Smart's characteristics, DON'T EVER BUY THIS CAR! You can do better with anything else on the market, and that's true no matter how you slice the deal.
"Oh Karl, you've obviously got an irrational loathing for the Smart and are thus incapable of seeing its positive aspects."
No, I've got a rational loathing for it based on its pointless existence. To prove it, I'll describe a Smart car I wouldn't hate. It would get at least 50 mpg in real-world driving, have a transmission that doesn't threaten whiplash with each shift, and it wouldn't cost a cent more than the current version. Oh believe me, I still wouldn't buy such a car, but at least it would have enough clear advantages over several existing economy cars it wouldn't be a pointless excercise (as it is in its current form).
Maybe that's why the Smart division has never made a profit. I keep wondering how long Daimler is going to support this money-losing excercise. Saturn lasted roughly 20 years before GM pulled the plug. Let's hope Daimler is "smarter" than GM and puts this vehicle out of our misery, post-haste.
We're about to sell our long-term Smart. Three words: Door. Knob. Butt.
By pat1usmc
on August 4, 2009
07:29 AM
Excellent. I want to see the original version of the article though.
And don't mention this blog to the prospective buyers!
By aspade
on August 4, 2009
08:32 AM
Extraordinarily poor ergonomics and dynamics aside, a 106" vehicle that turns on a dime has real city parking advantages over 155-160" of any other compact.
As an exclusively urban commuter for short trips that might even justify the rest of the car to some people.
Pontificating on how terrible the car is for your 100 mile highway commute is missing the point. Kind of like all those LT blog posts about how much it sucked trying to city park the 19' Tundra and Silverado.
By blackadder5639
on August 4, 2009
08:50 AM
"Pontificating on how terrible the car is for your 100 mile highway commute is missing the point."
Aspade, you do have a point, but then....
" Do you want to talk seating position and ergonomics?.......It [should] get at least 50 mpg in real-world driving, have a transmission that doesn't threaten whiplash with each shift, and it wouldn't cost a cent more than the current version."
You see, Karl's beef with the car is not necessarily about its commuting abilities. I think his point is that it's a bad car in just about every department. Sure, it's easily maneuverable in the city, but is that the only reason to buy a Smart when a Yaris can give me that and all that more for the same price?
I haven't test-driven a Smart, but I know I wouldn't buy on
By carlisimo
on August 4, 2009
09:05 AM
Sounds like a fair assessment. I get annoyed by all the hatred towards the concept behind the smart – it’s a strange niche, but there’s a point to it. But there’s nothing wrong with calling out poor execution of a concept.
I don’t think Mercedes Benz ever had a good chance of making it work. It’s not just their inexperience with small cars, which they’ve started to address with the A-class, but also the lack of a parts bin. And the A-class isn’t cheap. The company has little experience with proper cost-cutting. Toyota and Fiat on the other hand… I expect the iQ to get better reviews and I’m sure Fiat will release a strong competitor if the iQ proves that the segment is viable.
By mnorm1
on August 4, 2009
09:26 AM
"Extraordinarily poor ergonomics and dynamics aside,..." Well there is the high price.
The price compared to other vehicles with similar gas mileage has always been my complaint. To me it is not a smart buy.
By levyrob
on August 4, 2009
10:08 AM
I appreciate Karl's candor on this one.
Yet, maybe the Smart simply can't be compared to other cars...because it isn't one. It's a two-person, enclosed, internal combustion transportation module - not a car in the way we understand and appreciate cars.
Was the BMW Isetta a car? How about the Messerschmitt KR200? Perhaps the Smart exists only in the world of those conveyances. Narrow-function fringe automobiles. Kind of like a Hummer H1 (but on an entirely different scale)!
By 06scooby
on August 4, 2009
11:48 AM
I agree that the smart car sounds good in theory but they screwed it up in execution. give it a little diesel motor so it gets 60 mpg and it won't matter because it's already slow. At least don't have it run on Premium fuel. Give it a real manual tranny and sell it for 10-12k and it might make more sense.
By tiruvan
on August 4, 2009
12:38 PM
I couldn't agree more, Karl. Almost any 2 wheeler is a more dignified way to travel than the Smart.
By estreka
on August 4, 2009
01:31 PM
But it's so cute!
(please interpret that as sarcasm)
By nosubstitute
on August 4, 2009
02:46 PM
San Francisco is full of these things and I think I know why. Smarts are the ONLY cars that can fit in the idiotically laid out curb space between driveways in most of the City's residential neighborhoods. That means that instead of driving around endlessly searching for a spot in neighborhoods where people routinely move their cars only once a week when required on street cleaning day, you can park anywhere any time.
That's a pretty big plus. And when they start letting people park pointed in (as you can in Europe) it will be even bigger.
By firstwagon
on August 4, 2009
03:24 PM
I'll freely admit it has it's shortcomings (name a car that doesn't) but I don't think it's atrocious.
I drove a couple Smarts a couple years ago and really liked them. They weren't fast but the diesel always felt spunky and you can't drive fast in the city anyhow.... you'll just run into the car in front of you and in the city there is always a car in front of you.
At city speeds handling felt really good, you could whip it around like a little cart. I never drove it on the hwy but I'm sure it's better on the hwy then a Suburban is in the downtown city.
The best thing I can say is how well I remember them. I also rented a Yaris around the same time and I really can't remember anything about it. I'm sure it got good mileage, had a back seat and also fit in parking spots but it left no impression. A mortal sin for cars IMHO.
If I had a absurdly long commute like Karl, I wouldn't consider one either but for those who spend their lives downtown and have no kids the Smart isn't a bad choice.
By carlisimo
on August 4, 2009
04:19 PM
firstwagon, I've heard good things about the diesel too but the US got a poor engine/transmission combination. The reviews would've been much less bad with a diesel and either a manual or a real automatic.
But - good news, the Toyota iQ is on sale in Europe, and it's probably the closest competitor we can offer levyrob. We might see it as a Scion.
By kurtamaxxxguy
on August 4, 2009
04:31 PM
You have Company, Karl. Consumer Reports puts the Smart at the bottom of its list; they're in pretty much full agreement with your comments.
By ocramida
on August 4, 2009
04:37 PM
Smart=Fad
By ocramida
on August 4, 2009
04:39 PM
Smart = Fad
By petrolhead85
on August 4, 2009
06:44 PM
"Smart = Fad"
Possibly. I guess it's like the New Beetle and the PT Cruiser when they came out sometime around the Permian-Triassic boundary. People were, in some cases, paying way over sticker and waiting for weeks or months for delivery, and the cars weren't actually that good. At all.
My prediction: The Toyota iQ makes the Smart completely irrelevant. If Toyota exports it here, the Smart brand will be finished in North America within a few years.
By scott65
on August 4, 2009
07:20 PM
it's weird....up here in Canada where they have been on sale for years they still sell quite well. You see at least 20 buzzing around the city on any given day. But Canadians are more receptive to small cars than Americans. (I think)
By fdelapena
on September 7, 2010
08:06 AM
I still do not understand why people would even want to hate an inanimate object?
Come on! It is a car. Either you drive it or you don't. Why do you even have to bother hating it or loving it. Geez! It's a car nothing more.
It gets you to point A to point B. Why does it have to follow the standards of all the other cars? So people can say how much they hate or love the concept.
By maxwellsmart1
on July 13, 2011
05:32 PM
Dear 06scooby and group:
The Looneytunes-character maxwell smart car does indeed burn PREMIUM fuel, just Google it to confirm.
Some "economy car" at a paltry 32 mpg (Car & Driver Magazine) as well as requiring premium fuel.
Top Gear (BBC-TV) drove their new test Smart into a concrete barrier at 50 mph to underscore their feelings. Sad waste of concrete.