Would Americans buy a Smart car?

would Americans buy a Smart car? This car is very popular in Canada. Canucks use this car to commute to work and urban travel. However, this car isn't suitable for travel across the country due to limited cargo space. In addition, the engine is noisier than the Corrola or the Civic.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/08/smart.car/index.html

Now that is just a loaded question.

When you say things like "would Americans do" something, remember, we are about the least homogeneous country in world in terms of culture and terrain with significant population density. Yes, there are larger countries- Canada is bigger than CONUS, but most of Canada is settled like Alaska is, the population is actually a more concentrated in urban areas. That is like asking "would Europeans" or "would Africans" or "would Asians".

But I find your claim that are popular in Canada interesting, as I see an awful lot of Canadian plates on cars around here and I've never actually seen one of these things outside of a museum or being flatbedded to or from a car show. And I think comparing it to the smallest and some of the largest vehicles sold in America is sketchy at best- bad editing. What it doesn't do is hold Mom, Dad and 2.3 kids. Geez, it doesn't look like it has enough room in the trunk for normal equipment OR a full week of groceries, much less both at the same time.

Personally, I wouldn't buy one- I don't physically fit in a Mini and this is smaller (and it isn't a gutroom issue, it is a leg and headroom issue- I refuse to stick my head out the window like a dog). If it wasn't for the hill her workplace is on, my mother might be interested when there has been enough global warming that ice and snow are no longer a problem.

In the city...yes. In the country...I'd be afraid of pickup trucks and SUVs. I've seen quite a few crashes between compact cars and trucks on the highway, and it usually doesn't end well for the small car or the people inside.

Most people don't realize that crash test rating are based on weight classes, and generally a vehicle in a larger weight class has the advantage over a smaller vehicle, even when the smaller vehicle is rated higher. It's one of the reasons I will never have anything smaller than a full size car as my daily driver.

With that said, from what I've seen Americans, in general, are buying smaller vehicles. It might just be in my area (NJ/NY/PA), but not to long ago it seemed like every middle aged woman drove a Tahoe, Explorer, 4Runner, ect. Now I see a lot more small crossovers and sporty/luxury cars. Even guys are buying more cars now that most manufacturers offer AWD models (though pickups are still extremely popular). I think it will be a long time before the streets are filled with smart cars, but a lot of people seem to be looking at smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. Which, is probably a step in the right direction.

I guess part of that is based on chance and luck too. Today I don't really like to drive compact cars solely because you're surrounded by SUV's, Pickups, etc., (that could smash you like a bug) and it doesn't feel very secure. But having said that, I grew up riding in a '60 something Mercury sedan with bad brakes, a '78 toyota corolla, an original (rattling) VW diesel Rabbit, and never wore a seat belt till maybe 1985. And don't forget the drinking age was 18, no anti-lock brakes, no air bags, etc, etc. So I guess for me, even surrounded by mega-large SUVs, maybe driving a smart car today is statistically less risky than my entire childhood and adolescence. Who knew?

Biggest problem with the smart? It's great for an around town, and as you said, horrid for distance

What does that mean for Most people. Own 2 cars, insure 2 cars, maintain 2 cars.

Is that fiscally and/or ecologiclly sound? Maybe if you need 2 cars anyway.

I saw a few of these on the streets in Brisbane earlier this year. You never saw them anywhere else, like on the highway in or out of town. Definitely not in the Outback!

Since my current commute here in Florida is now about 5 miles through town, I would consider either that or a motorcycle. However, since I am 6'6" and 260+ lbs, I would probably opt for the motorcycle unless it is raining.

I think they are kind of cool, but if 40 mpg is the best they can do I'd go with something else.

I see a lot of these on the commuter highways in Alberta, in all weather conditions.

The first ones that came out had a pocket diesel engine that got 70 MPG. It looks like the newer models are gasoline powered, have more horsepower, and sacrifice that killer fuel economy as a result. They should have stayed with the hardcore diesel -- that's the future IMO. Problem is, it increases the cost, which would hurt them in the U.S. market.

Interestingly, when they first came out, a lot of businesses bought them and turned them into mobile billboards. A Hummer or F350 wouldn't turn heads; but these little Smart cars really did.

Who knows, they may be a surprise hit. Remember the VW Beetle? And you won't have to shell out the ridiculous cost of a Prius.

i saw them in europe a few years ago. great on mileage and a dream to park.

have been waiting.

agree that 40 isn't 70 and we don't have the parking issues europe does.

not sure now.

leave it to the u.s. to take a good thing and make it worse - emission controls, different fuels, crash testing.

why educate drivers on safe driving techniques when we can build 'em tanks to run rampant and they can't hurt themselves no matter the accident?

rant off.

small cars will be in our future. until they hybridize the tanks.

I live just outside of D.C. where the congestion and drive times are ridiculous. There are a lot of Minis and other sub-compacts on the road here, so the Smart Car may have a half decent shot.

I've already seen a Smart Car out on the streets in Fairfax County Virginia, but I'm not sure if it was owned, a test model, or what.

It certainly was a head turner that's for sure. People were waving it to cut into heavy traffic just to get a better look.

I thought it was funny that I happened to be leaving a gas station when I got in behind it.

Now, I probably wouldn't buy one because I work from home, rarely drive, usually distance drive when I am on the road, my car gets great gas mileage, and it's paid for.

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.

For some reason this reminded me of where I've read most millionaires live in modest homes, drive later model vehicles, and live rather unassuming lifestyles. From what I've seen, more often than not, its those who can least afford the lifestyle who pretend to have wealth.

You haven't seen any of the new diesels then. (Or maybe you have and you just didn't notice they were diesel.) Mercedes, VW, Jeep, you can't even tell they're diesels. No more noise than a regular gas engine and very little diesel smell. Even the new diesel engines in the large pickups are leaps and bounds better than the last generation as far as refinement.

As far as the fuel costing more, a diesel gets 30% or better mileage than a similar gas engine. With gas at $3.00, diesel would have to be $3.90+ just to break even. Generally, the only time the difference is almost that large is in winter [when home heating oil purchases drive up the cost of diesel fuel]. Most of the year diesel sits at slightly above regular. Either way, cost per mile is often much lower with diesel, even with fuel itself generally costing more. Over time it ends up saving you money.

If you really want to save money you could run biodiesel (legal) or untaxed dyed diesel (illegal), both cost well under what diesel costs and even under what regular gas costs.

The other thing I like about diesel is the safety factor. It isn't as volatile as gas, so you can store it with little explosion risk. There is also little risk of fire or explosion in a crash compared to a gas vehicle. For our construction business we buy diesel when the price is low and store it for the rest of the year in 10,000 gallon tanks. It ends up saving us even more money than when we would buy at the pump, and we have a large stock of fuel on hand in case of an emergency (like a fuel shortage).

ALFA ROMEO 159 1.9 16V JTDM

I wouldn't call the Alfa Romeo 159 an unrefined car, It gets 49 mpg on the freeway and a combined 39.2 mpg. Its just you can't get cars like this in the US.

or how about the Diesel powered Alfa Romeo Brera 2.4 JTDM



Alfa Romeo Brera 2.4 JTDM - Freeway 43.5 mpg and combined 34.6 mpg.

And there are plenty more cars like this unavailable to the US consumer.

Interesting thread, nice to have some non-US perspectives. I've read that diesel-powered autos will soon, if not already, be outselling gasline cars in Europe. Might note that diesel-powered Audi P1 cars have won the last two 24 hours of Le Mans in part because of the better mileage, even at 180 mph.

The SMART car, diesel or not, is not for me. I drive mostly highway miles and no way am I winning the laws of physics battle between me and a Freightliner in that car. Might have a chance in my Volvo (I do get 28 mpg in that car).

One thing that separates Europeans and North Americans is the understanding of distance. I lived in Paris (France) for a while and it struck me that Parisians had no idea how big the USA is. I could drive from one end of France to the other in about the same amount of time it would take me to drive from Philly to South Bend. I think that distance does color the way we look at the cars we drive. In Paris I would walk to my office in about 20 minutes. I've never had a job in the US where I could drive to my office in 20 minutes. We're big and spread out and except for those few folks, relativelty speaking, who live in cities with public transport, we all drive, probably everyday. That's not as true in Europe, at least from my limited experience.

SMART cars, great idea in the right situation, just don't fit my requirements.

dead on.

we are a consumer nation.

we are told what we need and what to buy. we need those trucks! cheap for the manufacturers and high profit margins.

i laugh as i drive by the beach here. the sand blows across the curbs and sometimes a few feet into the street. do you think the trucks and suvs park on the 5" of sand next to the unseen curb? nah. guess they don't want any sand on their tires. so they park out into the roadway..

No one with a family will buy such a thing.

Diesel fuel is likely to become cheaper than gas in the future due to refining capacity issues. There have been no new refineries built in the US in over a generation and only one or two in the works going forward. All new refining capacity in Europe (which supplies much of the refined produce for the US North East) is diesel with no new gas refining capacity planned. Elsewhere in the world diesel is the likely target of new refining capacity available for US shipment. It's supply & demand from there.

Most of Europe has a much higher population density than any part of the US except some parts of New England etc. I can't recall ever seeing statistics on how far the average European lives from work, but I do know that Americans change jobs more frequently so are likely to not prioritize buying a house near work as highly since they aren't as likely to stay there forever. Most middle-class Americans give first priority to quality of schools in choosing home location and are willing to sacrifice a lot of commute if there is a big difference in school quality.

What is the mileage with air conditioning on? Claims of stellar mileage if I would just leave the A/C off carry little weight when the temperature exceeds 110F.

Personally I'm not interested in owning one, but a great source of information on the cars is: http://smartusa.com/index.aspx

No. Looks like a deathtrap to me, and for that size, it should get 100 mpg. I'd either go with a Honda Civic, or a diesel, if I wanted high MPG. Personally, I'm more interested in safety than mileage, and lean towards heavy rather than light.

The Smart car looks positively huge compared to this car,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mio5fTKqWgM

I'm affraid its all relative when it comes to size.

There have been car research prototypes, which can achieve 100 mpg and these prototypes were developed nearly 30 years ago. There really is nothing smart about the Smart Car.
Today it is completely possible using advanced technology to produce a production family car which can attain the goal of 100 mpg.


The British Austin AR6 protoype dating from 1982 was constructed from lightweight Aluminium and composite materials and had a high efficiency 3 Cylinder Diesel engine developed from the K series engine line.

A similar car could be produced using similar recyclable materials and together with improvements in aerodynamics (Giugiaros Ital styling) and electronic regenerative braking and modern computer controlled fuel injection control systems, 100 mpg is easily achievable. To see the future, you sometimes have to look back in to the past.

The problem though, is that a modern version of that vehicle would be significantly heavier. It would need to meet modern safety and emmissions requirements, which add a lot of weight (which hurts fuel mileage). To try and keep the weight down they would need to use expensive light weight materials. You might get the weight down, but then the price shoots way up. As the price goes up, the less people are going to buy it. Few people want a $70,000 family car with no immenaties, even if it does get 100+ mpg. There is always a trade off.

If we didn't have safety and emmissions requirements it would be easy to get 100+mpg. Quite a few production cars in the past got close to 100mpg; the Peel P50, made in the 60's, got well over 100mpg.

Today it's a lot harder than it used to be. I think they could produce them, but I don't think it's financially feasible for any manufacturer currently. Over time, fuel mileage will increase. For right now, your best bet for awesome gas mileage is still a motorcycle/moped.

I drove one in Cyprus, and it's noisy, a bit scary (that was mostly because I was driving on the "wrong side" and I suspect that was a big factor), but it's bigger than you'd expect. There's not much cargo space, that's true.

While it has crash-tested and passed, simple physics tell you that a Smart Car vs. a Yukon is going to be a fairly easy contest to predict.

I miss my Dodge Omni, that was a great vehicle!

You need to check out the book, "The Millionaire Next Door". The authors discovered that the most common vehicle owned by millionaires was the Ford F-150 pickup truck.

There's a HUGE difference in being a person of wealthand a person of income. Typically the latter tend to buy newer, expensive cars and larger houses. A true person of wealth is often keeping an older car longer and living in a house more suitable for family size. That's how they accumulate wealth in the first place.

Back to the original question: No, unless the car had room for both my wife and my dog (80 pound Golden Retriever). I'd hate to leave the wife home because I'd sure miss my dog!

That's true for a lot of things. Cars & electronics are the two come to mind first.

The 159 looks like a nice package.

Last fall it was running about 10 cents more per gallon. I'd heard the mileages for diesels were better but the last comparison I did for diesels was motorhomes. The couple that was looking at them was averaging 10+mpg with a gas model. The EPA numbers for diesels at the time were about 8.

It also depends on what you're driving at the time. A/C load on a pick-up isn't worth the discomfort. The load on a small 4cyl. will have a much larger impact. BTDT with the pick-up.

Saw one of these today, dang is it small. Was driving to work and a smart car pulled out of one the affluent gated neighborhoods that have sprung up around here. This thing is smaller than my Mazda miata. While i might drive one if someone offered up the keys i wouldn't buy one. In a word, it is ugly. Will drive a dirty beat up truck, but can't bring myself to drive an ugly car.

In RVs the gas engine is often much less powerful than the diesel (~350hp to ~500hp). The diesel is often a more powerful option, for people who plan on towing with their RV. Therefore, it's like comparing a 4cyl to an 8cyl. When comparing gas and diesel engines, you need to look at similar rated engines in power. The diesel is almost always ahead by a large margin.

I drove one in Italy, which can be very scary driving in any car. It worked very well in urban centers, but I was not comfortable at all driving it between urban centers, particularly those roads on which Italians feel comfortable with high speed passing - in a form of line splitting - in the face of oncoming traffic.

i learned to drive in a Smart, although i did it was in a ForFour. It's the larger brother of the ForTwo. The FourFour is like a normal smaller sized car, with four seats.

Considering that there are many other good small and economic cars, i would rather go for a slightly larger car than a ForTwo. Pretty much all manufactures have small and economic cars these days.

Dirty and beat up? I just refer to that as "urban camoflage" meaning that most thieves wouldn't bother with it. My truck may be dirty and scratched, but the engine, brakes, transmission, etc. meticulously maintained.

I don't know what the power ratings were but IIRC their current motorhome keeps up with the diesels on mileage even when they tow a Jeep J series (CJ etc.) with all four wheels on the ground.