The Truth About Cars reviews the Smart ForTwo, says thumbs down
The Truth About Cars used to say the Smart ForTwo excels at just one thing: unmetered parallel parking. In their review of the new ForTwo, TTAC says the second-generation vehicle is "a great idea in theory, a laughable device in practice. " They detail their charges here.
The main problems, TTAC says, is that this is a, basically, a toy car. It doesn't have the oomph needed for the kind of highway driving we're used to and the transmission is pretty bad (they say it "still shifts the way Frank Costanza talks," if that means anything to you Seinfeld fans).
While the luggage space is larger and improved suspension is better than in the first version, the ForTwo, they say, still isn't quite ready for prime time. The only ForTwo I've only driven was a Brabus diesel, and that trip was only around the block, but it was all right. We look forward to giving the US version of the ForTwo a deeper review of our own in the future.
[Source: TTAC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
mario guimaraes 7:02PM (1/23/2008)
I have a Smart Fortwo Grand Style with only 7.500 kms with excessive oil consuption and I know other five situations. How come there is very few things written and warning potential buyers abouth this.
Reply
Joseph 11:55PM (11/02/2007)
I've heard the transmission is terrible. :(
Kind of strange to hear from Mercedes, don't you think?
I don't believe the car is as slow as they say. I've heard of a 0-60 in 10-11 seconds, which is bad, but not the worst. A 0-60 like is enough ooph for anyone. On the highway, it's a different story, but how many people will every drive this car for a meaningful amount of time on the highway?
I think the Smart will be great for what it's mean for: city driving... and as a "cute" car to show off.
Reply
Tony Belding 7:23PM (11/02/2007)
Does TTAC have any credibility left at this point?
Their multiple misstatements about Tesla, which they've refused to acknowledge or correct, have left me disinclined to pay any attention to anything they say henceforth.
Reply
bluegreen 7:41PM (11/02/2007)
It sounds like TTAC is evaluating the Smart in the context of a sports sedan. Sadly, maybe GM is right after all... people will say they want one thing but go buy an SUV or 300 HP 0-60 in 6 sec monster. Apparently a change in attitude is too much to ask for in the U.S.
Reply
Snowdog 7:57PM (11/02/2007)
What is the surprise? How is this car better than a Honda Fit. It barely gets much better gas mileage, and loses at everything else(performance,handling, comfort, people capacity, cargo capacity).
This is mainly for the "look at me, I am a freak" crowd.
Reply
BHendrix 12:17AM (11/03/2007)
So the Smart is not ready for prime time, huh? Real world experience suggests otherwise. The fact is, after nine years on the market and 800,000 sold, the Smart has already proven to be prefectly viable for its intended use. I nearly bought one last year, but decided to wait for the new model.
Really, the Smart fits into Canadian city life just fine. If it can work here, it can work in the U.S. as well. Or is it that Canadians and Europeans are simply better drivers that we can handle this car, and Americans can't?
Reply
Paul Peterson 2:36AM (11/03/2007)
It's also about taking up less space on the road. Sure it's easier to park, but less car = shorter traffic jams.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 7:42AM (11/03/2007)
What? Snowdog say it barely gets better mileage than the Honda Fit. I think the Fit is just great, but the Smart is 40 mpg, the Fit is 30 mpg. That's a 33% increase. I wouldn't call that "barely better".
I saw the Smart all over Europe, where fuel is much more expensive than the US. Someday US gas prices will catch up, then the Smart will catch on here.
Reply
fawgcutter 9:52AM (11/03/2007)
Being a kei car fan and a motorcyclist, I feel that they are evaluating this vehicle out of context with it's intended purpose.
I remember seeing a first gen ForTwo in the NAIAS a few years back and remarking to my sister that it would be perfect for me going to work in during the winter. Not surprising she said something about getting hit by a bigger car.
My reply was that is it any different than being hit while riding a bike and why should I pay to move all that sheetmetal of a larger car when I'm going 10 miles crosstown not exceeding 40 miles an hour when it's only carrying my butt and a briefcase.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 10:33AM (11/03/2007)
Hmmm, travelling 10 miles through the city with only one occupant.
You should be looking at the Ford Expedition, GM Tahoe, or Toyota Sequoia. In any case case be sure to get the back seat DVD system. You don't want people to think you're a communist, do you? :-)
Reply
mike 12:01PM (11/03/2007)
The title for this story should be "Delusional Jack-A** Test Drives the SMART".
And again with the horsepower. 0-60 isn't 10 TIMES what I need in real traffic cry baby. And I can only get it to Understeer? You mean you want it's tail end to slide?
This car is about Being Smart, not buying 10 Times the Horsepower Capacity you need to commute to work or take a long trip for two. It's about EFFICIENCY. But, the Auto-Press and the Oil-Auto-Industry don't want you to buy efficiency, that would cut into the Only Game They've Got. HORSEPOWER.
Reply
Dave 1:12PM (11/03/2007)
For TTAC it seems to be more about grabbing a headline than garnering a reputation for accuracy or objectivity. Their choice of words, "...a laughable device in practice." proves it. Smart ForTwo WORKS and they're not happy about it.
Yes, I would actually buy a Smart ForTwo. How about a Ford Mondeo? How about a full size American sedan with a manual transmission? The list goes on...
Reply
Cobos 5:33PM (11/03/2007)
I actually think TTAC has a point, even though I don't have much respect for the site as such. Since the idea with the SMART is to save gas I've looked at the diesel version on sale here in Norway.
It has these specs: 45bhp@3800, Combined 3,3 L/100km, acceleration: 19,8s 0-100km/h, Weight: 770.
Compare that to the VW Polo Bluemotion
80bhp@4000, Combined 3,9L/100km, Acceleration 12,8s 0-100km/h Weight: 1084 –1167kg
So for just 20% more diesel consumption you get 3 more passengers, a lot more cargospace, better driving and almost half the acceleration time, THAT is what I would call efficient.
The problem I see with the SMART is these customers might as well buy a Think or other small electric "punishment car" and get a truly efficient car.
Reply
Snowdog 9:18PM (11/03/2007)
I wonder if people read reviews elsewhere, they all echo what TTAC says. The transmission is crap, the handling is crap, the ride is crap. It is small and slow.
EPA:
Fit: 28city 34 Highway
Smart: 33city 40 Highway
For what you lose compared to the Fit, this seems like minimal increase in fuel mileage.
Reply
mike 8:41AM (11/04/2007)
snowdog brings up a good point, why is the FIT's fuel economy so POOR. It's as if the auto industry is bringing out "value" segment cars to suck up More Gas. If you want "Efficiency" you have to pay more. Marketing Strikes Again.
The SMART, can it keep up with traffic? Yes.
Is it a car you'd use to Rob a Bank? No.
Can it safely handle swerving around your typical dead squirrel in the road? Yes. Will it compete in an F1 track course? No.
I think a SMART buyer knows and can live with driving a car without the typical Auto Press Delusions.
Reply
Alex 9:15AM (11/05/2007)
I was really excited about the SMART coming state-side. I put my $99 down, and check on the website for updates daily. Then i took it for a test drive...
The transmission is AWFUL. It's not just that its slow, it's jerky too. It was like driving with a new driver learning stick. High rev, high rev, pause, pause, pause, SHIFT, pause, pause, low rev...
0-60 is fine. Really it's a 3 cylinder econo car you can't expect much. But the problem with acceleration comes in the moving acceleration. This car does not like on-ramps, not even down hill ones.
The car suits a nitch - city only driving. I am not in that nitch. I need it to be able to run highways. So I got my money back and I'll just save my pennies and wait for the A1.
@ BlackbirdHighway: I don't think this car will catch on they way you think it will. Fuel prices in Europe have been high for decades. Yes, US fuel prices are on the rise but there is so much technology moving at a faster pace that we'll have many more alternative fuel car options. Hybrids being the most likely to keep the SMART's demand low.
Reply
Joe P 3:19PM (11/05/2007)
I currently own a 2007 Fit. My real world gas mileage is 35 mpg on my daily commute and 40 mpg on the highway. If the Smart gets only 40-45 mpg, what's the point? Last spring my girlfriend and I loaded my Fit with a lawn mower, weed whacker and who knows how many bags top soil, fertilizer, mulch, etc. How could I do this with a Smart? (And who needs an SUV?) The only advantage I see for the Smart is that it's easy to park but I've never had to drive past a parking spot because it's too small.
Reply
Snowdog 6:33PM (11/05/2007)
Mike:
Nice try for bashing the Fit for being within 6mpg of the smart. I will trade 6MPG for a real car.
As far as handling, there is also the question of how it can handle winter. I saw a review on some TV program that indicated with any snow at all, it had a hard time moving. This link seems to concur it is problematic and this is with winter tires:
http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=d183fcda-8634-47cc-81a1-493979a249eb
"The short-wheelbase Smart was even quicker to rotate, its skid program having little effect on the ice. Those who grew up with the Volkswagen Beetle -- the original -- may remember this eagerness to swap ends. The Smart's winter tires struggled to stay planted. Like the Charger, it wouldn't have stood a chance on summer treads."
If you treat this as a fair weather low speed golf cart for city driving it is nearly peerless. I would say there is a good reason for that as most of us don't want ultra-small, slow, fair weather golf carts.
Reply
Calguy 1:30AM (11/06/2007)
Ugh. That Fit is an overweight, giant hideous mobile. Naturally I'd encourage everyone on Earth to get one, as it's relatively brilliant -yet I'd never own one. No sunroof, no heated seats and you can't park it nose into a typical parallel space. If I want small.. I want s-m-a-l-l. The FIT is about the size of the orignial Accord. No thanks.
The SMART is inarguably imperfect. The mpg is only ok, the transmission, from my experience is so-so, the styling from the first model is overdone.. but it's still magnetic. I want one. Period. Seemingly, about 20,000 other people do as well. The SMART isn't for everyone. Just as a motorcycle isn't, nor a Jeep.. but debating the 'point' is pointless.
Reply
Snowdog 8:42AM (11/06/2007)
Calguy I love your rationalizations and your "I want one and we can't debate it" attitude.
It sucks, but you want one because it is small and easy to park. Have you considered a bicycle? Seriously, is parking that hard for you?
The Smart already gets less mpg than a prius, next year VW is returning with Diesels, clean ones at that, that will probably give a big Jetta wagon better MPG than a smart. The smart offers nothing but small size in comparison. The Jetta will have the carrying capacity of an SUV and fuel economy to beat the Smart along with better performance and sweet DSG transmissions.
Yeah in the end you can't debate what some people choose (lots of women start relationships with prison inmates after they are in prison), But don't pile on TTAC for telling it like it is for this clown car.
We will see how many of those 20 000, still want one after test driving it. I am curious, will this be your only car, or just a spare commuter and "image" car?
Reply