Posted on 11/19/2007 9:00:06 AM PST by Slapshot68
"The Smart's base price is $11,590, and a fully loaded Smart Fortwo Passion convertible goes for $16,950. The 1,800-pound car gets 40 miles per gallon."
(Excerpt) Read more at biz.yahoo.com ...
“Over the years I’ve gotten the impression that everything Ford and GM did in Europe was better than the stuff they come up with in Detroit.”
Case in point...the Euro Focus. Highly regarded in the European market...P.O.S. here.
There is a certain segment out there for whom it is not enough for a car to be fuel efficient. It must look fuel efficient. It aids in being smug.
There are two ways to reduce the effects of an impact. Spread the applied force out over time, and spread the force out over area. You also try and prevent vital areas from direct impact so those areas get effected less.
Restraints spread out the force over a greater area, as well as distribute that force to areas of the body that are better built to handle that impact.
It's better to take that force across your waist and chest which are much better designed to handle it than having you head smash into the windshield or the thinner steering wheel that gives less smash into your ribs.
An airbag spreads out the force over an even greater area. It also cushions the impact to some extent, by spreading out the force over time. They reduce the acceleration of the person, rather than the acceleration of the whole vehicle like crumple zones do. They also try to apply force to even out the force on your body so your torso doesn't get decelerated faster than your head which can can be very bad for your neck.
Crumple zones help by reducing the acceleration from a collision, but if the occupants are not wearing seatbelts then the vehicle will be a deathtrap regardless of size or safety features.
True. Because the passengers are much more likely to take a localized impact on the dash or window rather than have that force spread out more.
However crumple zones reduce the overall acceleration felt by the passenger compartment. A more massive vehicle also reduces the overall acceleration in a collision between two cars because more of the impact will be felt by the other vehicle that way.
What a rigid passenger compartment tries to do is prevent intrusion into the passenger compartment by objects that might produce force in a localized area damaging it more.
A lighter vehicle is more dangerous than a heavier one.
A vehicle without crumple zones is more dangerous than one with them.
A vehicle without restraints and airbags is more dangerous than on with them.
Both big cars and tiny ones can have airbags and restraints.
The tiny one can't have crumple zones, and regardless of the design of the frame usually has a harder time preventing objects from intruding into the passenger compartment, and the larger vehicle can always have a better protected passenger compartment.
The more massive vehicle will always take a lower portion of the impact force.
We can talk about unrestrained occupants, but once again they are still safer in the larger vehicle, because they will get tossed around less.
The smaller vehicle always has the disadvantage, they are just trying to lessen that disadvantage with a rigid passenger compartment.
Don’t, I think my F150 crapped it out the tailpipe! Bad gas.
Had a Rambler for a while in high school. All the dudes thought they were so cool in their 57 Fords and Chevys or TR3 or other 2 seat sports cars.
In my Rambler... the front seat reclined into a bed.
Now, think back to high school. What did we all want to be, cool or laid?
:~)
I take it back!
40 MPG SMART Car Arrives in U.S. — my question is, “How did it get here? Does it float too?”
In this case, “Smart Car” can be translated to:
“Death Trap”.
That might well be among the ugliest vehicles to reach our shores in 3 decades. I’m surprised that GM didn’t design it!
You're right - there used to be a few cars that would exceed 40 mpg highway. A couple of 4-cylinder gasoline cars like the early Civic, and I believe a couple of diesels (the VW Rabbit comes to mind). They were considerably larger than this toy, and you could actually carry a few belongings with you.
Mark
They’d sell a lot of those if they cut the price in half, but - as you say - for $17K you can get almost the same mileage and a lot more car.
Pretty damn good, actually.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/433802/smart_crash_test/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/60538/smart_car_crash/
And in this one, it fares better than the Mercedes S Class it hits head on...
http://www.htlounge.net/articles/681/1/Smart-car-crash-test-video
“”Probably wouldn’t fare any better in the face of an 18-wheeler.”
I hope none of the SUV enthusiasts on this thread think they can take on an 18-wheeler in their SUV.”
Those are cool cars for cities. I’ve seen them in Europe and they make a ton of sense for a place like London.
Is this another “Designed by OPEC” cars?
I live in America, I want big, I want EGO big, i want something that absolutely screams, “Don’t Mess with me!” type of big.
This NOT the future, future cars will have an abundance of power, 500HP fuel celled engines are everyday practical instead of these Rube Goldberg Model T’s.
We saw plenty of these on a couple of Euro vacations. My recollection was that in Italy, they are only allowed in the city and are denied access to the Autostrada.
On the plus side they could hose down the interior and sell it to the next customer...
In America, there is an identity tied to the car you drive. Elsewhere in the world it is like a toaster.
Get used to having a toaster with no personality, comrade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.