The worst new car ever.

ditchdigger wrote: ...still others think late 90's Tauruses are nice looking.

Guilty

Kenny_McCormic wrote: I point and laugh at anybody driving one outside of a dense city. The only great quality the not very Smart car possesses is you can park it anywhere. Other than that, its a econobox that can't do econobox things, like carry more than 2 people and 2 bags of groceries, or be serviced outside of a MB dealer.

Fine then, I'm gonna point and laugh at anyone driving a big crew cab pick-up or a '70s land yacht sedan in the city. Pointless derision for all!

I gotta side with kenny, up to a point. There are cars that do a better job of everything for less money, such as the aforementioned Fit.

I just do not see the point of a Smart, even over there. For instance: the original Fiat 500 was about as easy to park and would carry 4. Yeah, I know JThw8 carried a Chevy block in his, but what the average family needs is enough room for two adults and one or two booger dispensers, plus some groceries etc. The Smart just does not fit that at all, this makes it about as useful to the average family as a Miata would be.

Thus it will forever be relegated to niche player for annoying hipsters.

Flight Service wrote: I do not like how the smart feels, I do not like the smart's little wheels I do not like how the smart shifts I do not like how I don't fit I do not like them here or there I do not like them anywhere I do not like the smart car fan I do not like them, a man I am.

That's the most entertaining thing I've read since this morning on the can. ROFLMAO!

^ That was awesome.

Yeah, the smart pissed me off – picked up a girlfriend to go to the gym, we had to put our bags in the trunk. Bought a chair for my office, I had to bust my truck out of storage to get it home. The Fit would have carried it (or my mountain bike), the smart's lack of practicality doesn't make up for any novelty factor it has. Although it's not too bad if you're alone as you can use the passenger seat for your junk.

vwcorvette wrote: Too many smart haters gonna hate. Aside from the three hour drive to the dealership I REALLY like it. The shifting is a no brainer once you learn how to shift it. Like any car it has its own patterns and foibles. But I enjoy driving it over the App Gap here in Vermont. I cab get a real world 45 mpg on the highway running all day long at 75 mph. How many other cars can do that? As for old cars and equivalent mileage, this car is safer, has ice cold a/c, and handles extremely well. My wife regularly gets 50mpg around on her commute. I enjoy small cars that are fun and tossable. This one is. Maybe more so than my 75 Vette. If my wife would only let me try the used formula vee tires on it!

I don't like cheap Cabernet, does that make me a hater? Overcooked steak is awful, I guess I hate that too. When did we decide that we had to like everything? Hey, if you like the Smart, bad Cabernet, and burned steak, more power to you. I don't and if that makes me a hater so be it.

And Ken Block is not the greatest rally driver ever !

Now get the hell off my lawn.

being serious for once, I don't like the fact they are only two seaters and they only get mid 30s on fuel economy. I mean lets look at a 500, or the fit or that toyota thing. they sit 4 people are very easy to park etc.

I like the tall view out but it seems to me a few inches in wheel base and a set of back seats with suicide doors would have made that into a very good little car.

As is, in the US market, even in our cities, no. And with the500 hailing from the land of tiny streets I am guessing it isn't the answer there either.

Well, I didn't mean to start such a poopstorm!

For the record, though, I found the seating in the smart to be much roomier than the Fiat.

Comparing any two vehicles based solely on price makes for an invalid argument. An F-150 costs the same as a MX-5. The F-150 can haul more lumber. Does that make it better?

But when it comes to price, the only reason I looked at a smart is they are currently offering a lease for $1300 down, $99/month. That's a very attractive deal. Too bad the car isn't attractive to me.

I have a hard time believing many people are getting below 40 mpg. Ours only does that when I drive it like a jackoff. And as for usabilty do I need to find the picture of our car with my goalie gear and sticks in back? Or with our 80 lb greyhound? It is immensely good for what we ask of it. If we wanted to pay more for a car cause it has an unneeded ( to us) back seat then we would have gotten a Yaris. When I ned to haul stuff I use the Jetta wagon. For great sunny days it's the 75 Vette. I'm not asking you to love the car, but the hatred for this care is hyperbolic at times. And some cheap cabernets are really good. Most couldn't tell the difference blindfolded.

Lesley wrote: Although it's not too bad if you're alone as you can use the passenger seat for your junk.

This is my situation most of the time. I simply don't need more car than a Smart >90% of the time. Too bad the smart has half the practicality and none of the fun compared to many other cars in it's class.

I miss my festiva

I want a smart car with a 'busa engine.

vwcorvette wrote: I have a hard time believing many people are getting below 40 mpg. Ours only does that when I drive it like a jackoff. And as for usabilty do I need to find the picture of our car with my goalie gear and sticks in back? Or with our 80 lb greyhound? It is immensely good for what we ask of it. If we wanted to pay more for a car cause it has an unneeded ( to us) back seat then we would have gotten a Yaris. When I ned to haul stuff I use the Jetta wagon. For great sunny days it's the 75 Vette. I'm not asking you to love the car, but the hatred for this care is hyperbolic at times. And some cheap cabernets are really good. Most couldn't tell the difference blindfolded.

I think, essentially, most of us have reason to believe that we'd use back seats for people often enough to make a Smart car pretty much useless as it would be relegated to second or even third vehicle in the fleet.

I look at it sort of like this: it has about the same carrying capacity as the Jensen, only it will be nowhere near as much fun to drive. The Jensen doesn't get as much use as I'd like because of that capacity thing therefore no Smart car in my fleet. That's my personal situation, someone else may find it to be perfect and to them I say good, glad you are happy.

GameboyRMH wrote: The electric smart will run you over $28k.

You can get a used E36 M3 and a original CTS-V for that money. Which do you think we at GRM would choose?

In reply to Twin_Cam:

The Mitsu IMiev... That was a choice right? It is the same price as the electric smart and has storage and seats.

Seriously though, as said earlier, comparing on price along is silly because those cars and the smart are not in the same field for transport.

vwcorvette wrote: I have a hard time believing many people are getting below 40 mpg. Ours only does that when I drive it like a jackoff. And as for usabilty do I need to find the picture of our car with my goalie gear and sticks in back? Or with our 80 lb greyhound? It is immensely good for what we ask of it. If we wanted to pay more for a car cause it has an unneeded ( to us) back seat then we would have gotten a Yaris. When I ned to haul stuff I use the Jetta wagon. For great sunny days it's the 75 Vette. I'm not asking you to love the car, but the hatred for this care is hyperbolic at times. And some cheap cabernets are really good. Most couldn't tell the difference blindfolded.

^This. I fully get that it's not the right car for everyone but it is not deserving of the hatred it gets either. I was never able to get mine below 40 mpg and I do drive like a jackoff ;) My average was 43-45 and if I didnt drive it at 80 mph all day long I could get into the 50s. I kept my truck when I bought the smart, assuming I'd need something to haul crap, but I hauled more stuff with the smart than I would have thought possible. I find it funny that so many "enthusiasts" complain that we can't get the cool tiny hot hatches that they get in europe...well here's why. Granted the smart isn't the coolest or best of the breed but it was the one that took a chance on the U.S. market and the U.S. market confirmed that the average american doesn't want small cars and will find any excuse they can to hate them.

I like the Smart for the reasons ditchdigger mentioned of it being a modern version of the Isetta and such but the lack of the third pedal makes me a sad panda.

EvanR wrote: Comparing any two vehicles based solely on price makes for an invalid argument. An F-150 costs the same as a MX-5. The F-150 can haul more lumber. Does that make it better?

It would if it did damn near everything else better as well like quite a few small cars currently do vs the Smart car. At least as it relates to driving in the vast, vast majority of this country.

Where I live (middle of nowhere) the Smart car does exactly nothing that a current cheaper option doesn't do better. And even in the majority of American cities, this doesn't change much. When introduced it had a few additional edges in city applications in things like mileage and such, but those are pretty much gone at this point.

Now that's not to say there aren't other parts of the work where they make more sense, but here (as in the US) and now (as opposed to when they were introduced over here) it's real hard to make a rational case for one.

EDIT to fix run away italics

JThw8 wrote: Granted the smart isn't the coolest or best of the breed but it was the one that took a chance on the U.S. market and the U.S. market confirmed that the average american doesn't want small cars and will find any excuse they can to hate them.

Which is why then, had I had a need for that type of car it would make sense. But buying one now because it used to be a good option makes a lot less sense.

There are plenty of people who don't live in the middle of nowhere...

I live in the inner city of a major metropolitan area, 90% of my driving is on city streets, I almost never have a passenger, the streets are narrow and parking is at a premium, and I have a pickup truck for when I do need to carry around large objects. So, if I were to ever buy a new car, a Smart would make a lot of sense.

stuart in mn wrote: There are plenty of people who don't live in the middle of nowhere... I live in the inner city of a major metropolitan area, 90% of my driving is on city streets, I almost never have a passenger, the streets are narrow and parking is at a premium, and I have a pickup truck for when I do need to carry around large objects. So, if I were to ever buy a new car, a Smart would make a lot of sense.

I addressed that many people don't live in the middle of nowhere right in the post you replied to. That would be why I took care to differentiate between myself where it did nothing better, and others where it does almost nothing better. Note the words "doesn't change much" as opposed to "is the same."

But the question isn't "does a Smart car park easier than my truck?" It's is the marginal improvement in ease pf parking over any number of other small cars that do pretty much everything else better than the Smart car.

[EDIT] Sorry, hit the post button mid-post

Now there are a few cities even in this country where that advantage is a bit more than marginal. But I covered that already too, by admitting that in a minority of US urban areas the difference is more than marginal. Note the words "in the majority of American cities" not the words "in every city in the country."

Off the top of my head, I can think of one instance where I would consider one. If I were making small deliveries in an urban area, a Smart car would be right at the top of my list. Finding a spot to park once or twice a day in any other small car (not your truck) is going to be close enough that I'll take a car that's better at pretty much everything else over a Smart car's marginal advantage. Doing it dozens of times a day and that marginal advantage is magnified.

[EDIT to add]: I should mention that I've driven one as a delivery vehicle moonlighting for a florist. Is it moonlighting if it's during the day and your main job is at night? Though it was up here in the middle of nowhere where it was nothing but a cutesy gimmick. I've driven plenty in Minneapolis over the past almost two decades particularly over the past five years and mostly in small to mid-sized cars. While not the easiest city I've ever had to park in, it doesn't even rank in my overly annoying cities to park a small car in in the Midwest, let alone the nation as a whole. Parking something big like a truck sucks in basically all of them, so that's not terribly relevant. My daily driver was a 15 passenger van for a long time. Parking that sucker in cities was always fun.

[EDIT to also add]: And for those who think driving a Smart somehow reflects poorly on their manhood, how about driving one with flowers all over it?

vwcorvette wrote: And as for usabilty do I need to find the picture of our car with my goalie gear and sticks in back?

You don't need to, but could you? I'd be curious to see it. Hockey equipment is the reason I'm driving a Miata and never even gave the MR2 or Skystice a look.

In reply to mtn:

Sure, just have to find it. Was taken back in 08 when we got the first one.

I don't have a problem with the Smart, and was noticing the other day how prices on used ones are starting to drop pretty good. The ones we get here are capable of, and from what I understand, routinely get in the area of 70+ MPG. There's not much else on the road that will do that.

<img src="" />

<img src="" />

Bag contains goalie leg pads, chest/arm pads, goalie padded shorts, thigh pads, glove, blocker, helmet, and skates, plus various under garments, etc.