Posted on 06/23/2008 12:50:55 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Just passed along to add to the conversation.
Personally I’m not a fan of the Smart car as it seems to be overpriced for what it offers BEFORE even addressing the safety considerations.
Man, that Boxer quote is scary.
If you live in an urban environment only, I could see the point of a so called “Smart Car”, but if you live out in the wilds of West Texas, you’d probably die of boredom or be wiped off of the front of a pickup truck or combine in one of these “Smart Cars”.
Ever drive for hours without seeing a car on long, LONG roads in Texas, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, etc.?
80 MPH is SLOW in those places.
No way I am putting my family at risk in something like that.
Smart cars were designed for easy driving on the narrow streets of congested European cities. They were also designed to dodge certain Euorpean car taxes.
They weren’t designed to be incredibly fuel efficient.
Mercedes has a great scam going.
Me.
And when I get my Vortech put in there we should have that down to around 4.25.
Instead of rolling fly and looking phat your knees are up to your chest and your posse's getting laughed at.
Previously I have owned Porsches and BMW's (7 of them). My advice to anyone thinking of a Mini...."don't take a test drive unless you got the money in the bank"!
Careful there, you're insulting a classic. Besides, my 4-year-old can get his Tonka Dump Truck up to freeway speed in 9.2 seconds (of course, his was the supercharged model)...
I think they did well for safety with the size limitation of the design. There was no room left for crush zones so they made it fairly crush resistant.
Safer than a motorcycle (once in the crash, the motorcycle would do better avoiding the crash probably) but less safe than anything my family drives.
It seems to me as well there are better choices for economics as well as safety.
I remember seeing cars like this all the time in the far east back in the late 60s. They were all two cylinder bangers and could drive all day and then some on a gallon of mix...
"The big question from consumers is, ‘How safe is it?'", says Institute president Adrian Lund. "All things being equal in safety, bigger and heavier is always better. But among the smallest cars, the engineers of the Smart did their homework and designed a high level of safety into a very small package."In other words, those ratings tell you NOTHING about relative safety of different classes of vehicle. You'd have to get one of my old expert witnesses to clue you in on that question by interpreting the raw data.The Institute's test results generally demonstrate how well vehicles stack up against others of similar size and weight. Frontal ratings can't be compared across weight classes, meaning a small car that earns a good rating isn't safer than a large car that's rated less than good.
That's the dirty little secret of the NIHS ratings.
Does any one remember the Isetta? When I was in highschool I was riding my horse after school and I rode into an Isetta dealership. The salesman kept my horse while I took a test drive. I didn't want one then and I don't want one now.
Yes, in a wreck you would suffer, but the same is true if riding a motorcycle, yet people do not seem to be outspoken against that? I wonder why that is?
Or at least a spatula in the trunk for scraping the remains from the pavement. :)
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.
