2008 Smart commuter car gets 40 mpg and will selling in USA for $12k.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:49:58 -0400, dgk > wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:10:29 GMT, Jeff >
>wrote:

>>Actually, it is a perfect car for people in NYC. They're small enough so
>>that you can just drive them into the elevator and park them in the
>>corner of your cubical for the day.

It's not THAT small. Almost... ;-)

>We're not even allowed to bring bikes into commercial buildings in
>NYC, which is why my bike is parked outside. On the other hand, I
>think my bike is bigger so perhaps this will be allowed.

In New York City, home of the "Sucker Pole" - you lock your
expensive bicycle up to the "No Parking" sign, and you can come back
in thirty seconds and both the bike and lock are gone.

They drill out or chisel off and remove the rivet at the base that
holds the pole into the sidewalk, the whole thing slides right out.

And if the rivet is still there, it doesn't take much longer to
remove it, but they have to have Big Brass Ones to do it in daylight
hours with the bike there.

--<< Bruce >>--

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:34:34 GMT, Larry in AZ
> wrote:
>
>Mercedes cars are consistently rated as unreliable in Consumer Reports for
>several years in a row. Pretty much the entire model line available in
>the USA.

I seem to remember them coming in pretty near last!

"Bruce L. Bergman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:49:58 -0400, dgk > wrote:
>
>>We're not even allowed to bring bikes into commercial buildings in
>>NYC, which is why my bike is parked outside. On the other hand, I
>>think my bike is bigger so perhaps this will be allowed.
>
> In New York City, home of the "Sucker Pole" - you lock your
> expensive bicycle up to the "No Parking" sign, and you can come back
> in thirty seconds and both the bike and lock are gone.
>
> They drill out or chisel off and remove the rivet at the base that
> holds the pole into the sidewalk, the whole thing slides right out.
>
> And if the rivet is still there, it doesn't take much longer to
> remove it, but they have to have Big Brass Ones to do it in daylight
> hours with the bike there.
>

In "Anybody's Bike Book" Tom Cuthbertson suggests all bikes weigh 50 lbs. A
20 lb bike needs a 30 lb lock, a 30 lb bike needs a 20 lb lock, and a 50 lb
bike needs no lock at all!

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>
>>"Eeyore" wrote
>>
>>>"Robert A. Cunningham" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Consumer Reports had a short article about the "Smart for Two" car in
>>>>their
>>>>Dec '06 issue (not this same exact model).
>>>>They said it was the worst car they have ever tested.
>>>
>>>In what respect.
>>>
>>>It's the very best for parking.
>>
>>
>>The reliability seems truly substandard. I have occasionally lurked in SMART
>>forums and seen threads about seized alternators (lots and lots of them),
>>engine troubles, turbo troubles, doors jamming when hot (actually a common
>>problem with them apparently), transmission problems.... For soft-top SMART
>>models the motors in the Cabrio roof are notoriously troublesome and repair
>>is shockingly expensive. 50K miles or 80K km is considered old in many
>>circles, the way 250K miles is considered for Toyotas and Hondas. Whether
>>that is justified or just the owners' expectations isn't clear.
>
>
> Considering it's a Mercedes product that's very disappointing.
>
> Mercedes do actually make a small car under their own brand but don't sell that
> in the USA.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_A-Class
>
> Graham
>


Mercedes is well below the top on the dependability list in the USA...
The top is a toss up between Toyota and Honda..

JT

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:44:37 GMT, Larry in AZ
> wrote:

>Waiving the right to remain silent, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
> said:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:34:34 GMT, Larry in AZ
> wrote:
>>>
>>>Mercedes cars are consistently rated as unreliable in Consumer Reports for
>>>several years in a row. Pretty much the entire model line available in
>>>the USA.
>>
>> I seem to remember them coming in pretty near last!
>
>Correct.

What's totally hilarious is when you bring up that stat with a
Mercedes owner, and they go into a diatribe about precision, all those
features are complicated, etc...

Then you point out that the just as complicated and loaded Lexus comes
out at or near the top. <G>

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 17:08:46 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> wrote:

>
>If rising the center of gravity on a vehicle increased the chance it would
>rollover, one should expect to see box trucks and six wheels rolling over
>every day. The fact is the center of gravity of any vehicle is somewhere
>just above the centerline of the drive train . On the average SUV that
>would be less than two inches high than the average car. The propensity of
>a vehicle to rollover vis a v another has more to do with its wheelbase than
>its height. The SUV that would role first would be those like the Rav4 or
>Jeep rather than an Explorer or Sequa in any event

The propensity to roll over is a function of the CG, the track (the
distance between left and right wheels), not the wheelbase (the
distance from front and rear wheels.) In practice, the performance of
the suspension will play a significant role as well. As for the
relative propensity of SUVs and trucks vs. cars, I quote form e IIHS:


3. Are rollovers more common for SUVs than for other vehicles?
Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and
more common for SUVs than for pickups. This has been true in the past
and continues to be so. In 2005, 60 percent of SUV occupants killed in
crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 46 percent
of deaths in pickups and 24 percent of deaths in cars were in
rollovers.

Pickups and SUVs tend to be involved in rollovers more frequently than
cars largely due to the physical differences of these vehicles. Light
trucks are taller than cars and have greater ground clearance, causing
their mass to be distributed higher off the road relative to the width
of the vehicle. Additional passengers and cargo can increase the
center of gravity even more. Other things being equal, a vehicle with
a higher center of gravity is more prone to rollover than a lower
riding vehicle.

>The fact is the single most likely accident, that any particular vehicle
>will be involved in its lifetime, is a full frontal collision. In that type
>of collision the larger and heaver the vehicle the more likely properly
>belted passengers will escape injury or death

So, A Civic running into another Civic is more likely to result in
death than an Explorer running into a semi? If larger and heavier is
invariably safer, why are car death rates only half of what they were
30 years ago when the average car was much heavier. As usual, Mike,
your language and claims are imprecise and misleading.

Driving around in a monster SUV may (or may not) increase your safety
but it certainly increases the risk for everyone else, and not just
because the mass is greater. It is the elevated ride height which is
the biggest factor in increased risk to others. Well designed small
cars do very well in barrier collisions.


>One reason the Senate choose not to raise the CAFE standard for light trucks
>several years ago was the injury and death rate among properly belted
>passengers and children had dropped significantly over the past ten years.
>That improved rate was attributed to the fact more of them were riding in
>the larger safer SUVs.

The reason that the Senate did not raise CAFE standards at that time
was lobbying by the big three. If the Senate wanted to make a
rational decision they would have to consider whether the reduced
occupant death rate in an SUV outweighs the increased death rate in
the vehicle it hits.

By the way, the highway death rates do not include the skyrocketing
number of little kids who get crushed by SUVs backing out of the
driveway. More and more SUV drivers are finding out that an
unexpected bump was their four-year-old running out to say goodbye to
mommy. Goodbye mommy.

>Unfortunately recent action by the Senate will result in more poorer people
>riding in more of the smaller less safe vehicles, as in the seventies, and
>the injury and death rate will increase again as a result.

As previously mentioned, the car death rate is much lower now than it
was in the 1970s. And the rate in the 70s was lower than the 60s and
50s. Cars are much safer now than they used to be and they will be
even safer when the SUVs start disappearing.

>The rich will
>simply pay the $1,000 gas-guzzler, tax as they do today on many luxury cars,
>and continue to buy the large safer cars they want and can afford

If they are driving gas-guzzling cars, they will be much less of a
risk to drivers of economy cars than if they are driving SUVs like
they are now.

There are legitimate uses for SUVs and pickups, but unfortunately most
are not being used in these ways. A combination of taxes and
technical restrictions could ensure that they are only purchased by
people who really need them.

Jeff wrote:


> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.


All cars eject unbelted occupants in roll-overs.

Where have you been for the last hundred years?



Jack

Jack wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
>> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
>> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.
>
>
> All cars eject unbelted occupants in roll-overs.

An SUV isn't a car.

And SUVs are more likely to rollover than a car.

> Where have you been for the last hundred years?

For most of them, I wasn't even conceived.

Jeff

> Jack

In article >,
Gordon McGrew > wrote:

> A Civic running into another Civic is more likely to result in
> death than an Explorer running into a semi?
Both the Civic and semi would usually be toast if a semi hits them.

A Civic being hit by an Explorer would be in trouble, but two large SUVs
colliding together would be bigger trouble for the occupants than two
Civics colliding together.

The large truck like SUVs don't have the crush space of a car,
particularly a mid sized car such as a Honda Accord or Ford Taurus.

In article >,
"Graybeard" > wrote:

> BTW, the "Smart" car is a very interesting and attention-grabbing car.
> Wonder how it compares to the Corolla?

It's not comparable to the Corolla.
I suggest comparing it to the Yaris, still a practical quite roomy car
which is quite fuel efficient and low cost than the Smart.

IMO the Smart is the dumb car as a single car. OK as a second car for
the rich. The Smart is OK for two briefcase passengers in city driving,
however then public transportation may be the best solution.

Two people can't go grocery shopping or to the golf course with their
clubs and as for highway driving I wouldn't even consider it. No spare
and extra cost for a patching kit- bicycle like function.

Here many companies use them and as you say initially they are attention
getting so advertising on them will get attention initially.

Oh they aren't $12 K with the usually desired options, in fact I doubt
they ship the basic model.