Actually they are quite roomy (just 2 seats) and very easy for tall people (the high seating position avoids bending. I'm 6'4" and had no problem - I saw an interview with the 6'8" owner of a big mans outfitters and he had one as his company car.

In urban situations they are pretty cool, and park really well.

Sure. I would drive a Smart Car.

Now which one of you is going to buy me one?

Over 90% of my trips are just a few miles. Mostly with one person in the vehicle and requiring a load capacity of a couple of grocery bags.

"The Smart is expected to get at least 40 miles per gallon."

Greater than or equal to 40 mpg isn't bad. I would expect more but not too many other vehicles can match it in normal conditions without exotic systems. In the long run simple to work on and repair can save you a lot of money and trouble.

"At just under 9 feet long, the Smart car is about 3 feet shorter than the Mini Cooper and 7 feet shorter than the Ford Explorer. At 1,800 pounds, it's about 4,500 pounds lighter than an empty Hummer H2."

Doesn't sound too small to me. It looks to be more vertically oriented than the Cooper so maybe the taller folks won't have too much trouble fitting. Then again y'all tall blokes we can just strap to the top.

A friend had an MGB that wasn't too much larger and it was much lower to the ground. At one time I drove a Chevette that had a listed GVW of 1650 pounds so it isn't exceptionally light. It is listed as having a 71 HP engine. The Chevette had about 60HP and it was good, as long as the AC was off, to about 75 mph so it should pretty much stand up and dance. Not quite sports car material but plenty of ability to get up and go.

I keep thinking of the old Willis Jeep. It was small and light to. With only about 50 HP. As I recall those were driven across several continents. Sometimes under fire. Small shouldn't automatically preclude long distance travel.

I didn't notice a listing for how many people it could hold. I assume at least two.

SHTF and you need BOV/s you could get one each for you and the lady. Fill the passenger side and cargo area with stuff and take off in tandem. If one breaks down one tows the other to where you can work on it. Simple design is good.

If it is not repairable you load the cargo from the disabled one onto a roof and/or back rack and you take off in the working vehicle. Taking care to drive gently so the overweight car doesn't die on you.

Generally the dynamics of small car design are such that they generally accept overloading gracefully. I once carried five people, a canoe and several hundred pounds of camping gear in/on that old Chevette. Every time I hit a bump the tires would rub but it was still good at 65 mph, with a running start, but it made the 300 miles each way without any trouble. Kind of miss that old car. I could leave it at the trail head and nobody ever messed with it. I didn't even lock the doors. Just a chain through the hood and around a tree a couple of times.

If I was really looking for a smaller car I would pick up a diesel Jetta or something along those lines. Great mileage, a somewhat normal design, and plenty of low end torque. It might not be as clean as the smart car, but it's still cleaner than most of the cars/trucks/suvs on the road. You can even run it off biodiesel/vegitable oil if you're worried about how clean it is.


The new diesel Jetta coming out is supposed to get over 40mpg city and over 50 highway, have a six speed manual or six speed DSG, be available in wagon form, be 50 state legal, and it looks like a normal car. It would probably be my choice over a smart car or hybrid.

Apparently, the 2004-2007 SmartCars in Canada came with the turbo diesel (800 cc) but will be switching over to the gasoline model now that the gasoline version of the car will be sold in the US. Plus the fact that the diesel version doesn't meet the new requirements. When I read that it was only going to do >40 mpg US or 48mpg IMP - I was dumbfounded as the diesel version gets much higher mileage! However for the money, a diesel Jetta (1100 km range!) or Civic Hybrid will give you a more satisfactory experience.

They are apparently very popular in Vancouver/Victoria where the urban driving and mild weather is attractive. (10,000 sold so far in Canada). I've seen quite a few in my local community as commuter cars. But I don't think I've seen one on a highway yet. (Heck, I've even seen a Segway ridden by a very pudgy city hall worker who looked like he should be walking instead of riding!)

I think the Smartcar is destined for niche and collectors markets like the Mini and Citroën 2CV and isn't going to be a big seller.

Answer: No. I don't think most self respecting Americans would be caught alive or dead in that thing.

I would suggest a motorcycle, like an enduro type, part dirt bike, part street bike.

From the linked story:


No way for two reasons. 1) I'm getting the near the expected mileage both city & highway from a Camry Hybrid (38/41). 2) I'm 5'-10". The Chevy Cavalier size cars seem small to me. They may be called mid-sized but renting one while driving a full size pick-up thats in the shop feels like a compact.

True but the Willis had that nice cargo/passenger area behind the front seats.



I'd guess two plus minimum cargo (i.e. 1 week's groceries for same) based on the picture.

If it wasn't diesel I'd have to consider it. Too noisy, too smelly, & the fuel costs more around here. Then again the diesels I'm used to are pick-ups or larger.

Hi Picard,

Its not really the case that Americans would or would not buy fuel efficient cars, they just don't really have the choice.

http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm

There are over 100 motor cars which can achieve over 40 mpg, with nearly two thirds of the fuel efficient cars in the world, which are unavailable to the US consumer, are actually made by US manufacturers or foreign manufacturers with substantial U.S. sales operations.

The full list of fuel efficient cars can be had here at
http://www.40mpg.org/pdfs/021407_fuel_efficient_vehicle_gap.pdf

"I don't think most self respecting Americans would be caught alive or dead in that thing."

To some extent I agree. But I think that the main objections in this vein are centered around roles tangential to what a vehicle is primarily designed to do, get a limited number of passengers and cargo from point 'A' to point 'B'.

What pretty much started as 'You can have any color as long as it is black' with a very limited number visual amenities has shifted from practical productivity in the physical world to vehicle as expression of individual worth and status.

The locus shifting from tool for transport to statement and symbol. From moving me and mine at minimum cost and maximum convenience to 'How do I look in it' and 'What will people think of me after they see me in it'.

Observation being that most FWD vehicles will never spend any significant amount of time 'off-road'. Most vehicles that are pushing 6000 pounds and more are heavy because they ostensibly regularly carry a significant amount of cargo. Mostly they don't. The vast majority of the time they carry little more than a single person and a sack or two of groceries.

My neighbor always claims he needs his FWD F-250 to carry cargo for his 'ranch'. From observation the reality is that his ranch is a small cabin with a single horse and once, twice at most given seven years that I know of, a year he shifts a couple of sheets of plywood or a couple dozen fence posts with his truck. The balance of the trips have him driving to and from work and around town. Funny thing being I carry heavier loads more often in a much smaller vehicle.

I don't wish to single him out or condemn him as an individual. He is a nice guy and good neighbor. My intent is to point out how absolutely typical he is of a wide swath of the American population. The man works in an office as a cubicle gopher and spends 99% of his time in a typical suburban existence. But he 'Needs' his truck.

IMO what he needs is the truck as prop as a last vestige of his masculinity and the rugged persona he projects. He doesn't even take care of the one horse he keeps. The guy living next door to his 'ranch' does that for him. Seeing as that he has 50 head of horses and hundreds of cattle it isn't a big thing. He does it mostly to be neighborly. I'm not sure how well the horse would be cared for otherwise because my neighbor only gets up there a couple of times a year.

It is interesting to compare the real rancher with the suburban version. The real ranched seldom wears a cowboy hat or cowboy boots. His belt buckle is a small nondescript model from WalMart. his hat is baseball cap from the feed store and his boots are tan work boots. My neighbor makes a point of wearing a cowboy hat, pointy boots, bolo tie and silver belt buckle to match. The FWD F-250 is just a prop in the play.

Irony being that the real rancher mostly tools around in a beater Toyota pick-up. He has a seldom used larger truck to shift animals but 90% of the time you would see him in his rice burner.

My observation is that it is clear evidence of our wealth, and ability to cater to extravagances, that people can afford to buy and maintain vehicles, and entire artificial lifestyles, that are valued primarily as symbols. Instead of as simple functional tools for getting a practical and necessary job done.