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

Useful Info wrote:

> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
>

This has got to be the most bull**** troll of 'Useful Info'

What the **** does this have to do with the world's energy balance? My
son drives a TDI Jetta, so what! How safe is safe? So, one hundred posts
of useless drooling involving self importance. Yet, no cognisense of the
bigger picture. So human.......

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:46:22 +0000, Tegger wrote:

> Gunz4me > wrote in news:a7-
> :
>
>> Useful Info wrote:
>>> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
>>>
>>>
>> OMG, I can just see one of those on the interstate getting knocked into
>> the median by the draft of a big semi. The only plus I see with that
>> tiny car is that it should be easy to find a parking spot, assuming I
>> can make it to my destination without being run off the road.
>>
>> Second thought, I would much rather have a Honda Civic Hybrid than this
>> tiny car.
>
>
>
> We have Stupid cars already up here in Canada.
>
> I must say, they look most utterly strange on the highway among the SUV's,
> like mobile phone booths. And next to a semi, like roadkill waiting to
> happen.
>
> I measured one of these things once to see just how much room there was
> between bumper and steering wheel, and I came up with forty inches. That's
> right, just over one yard between whatever you ran into and you. Go
> measure your own car. How much distance is there in that location? On my
> Integra, I get 70", almost double the "crumple zone".
>
> I notice the Stupid's length has been increased by a whopping 3" for the
> 2008 model year, this in order to to "improve safety". Sorta tells ya
> something, doesn't it?


I paid $15G for a 2005 tC last September. May not get 40+ MPG, but it sure
is a BLAST!!!

I paid $1400 in 2002 for a '95 Tercel w/99,000 on it. That got 45 MPG.
Wasn't as much fun as a tC, but was a nice car!

Useful Info wrote:
>
> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org

My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than
$12K.

Eric

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:10:29 GMT, Jeff >
wrote:

>Mike Hunter wrote:
>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on
>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one would
>> be better off just buying a actual
>> coffin for $5,000
>>
>> mike
>
>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.
>
>Jeff

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.

On Jun 29, 12:59 pm, Useful Info > wrote:
> Read all about it, hehttp://Muvy.org

Well don't have to read anything about it.
Since we have been telling the GM, Ford, Chrysler,
New Pork and Popular Mechanics idiots for over 80 YEARS now,
that ANYTHING, from a unicyle to a US Post Office double wide, that
gets
ANY rating of (X) MPG. for X ranging from
minus infinity to plus infinity is NOT a
HIGHWAY or ROAD vehicle.
It's a SEARS Vehicle, MORONS.

"Eric" > wrote in message ...
> Useful Info wrote:
>>
>> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
>
> My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than
> $12K.
>
> Eric

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.

Robert A. Cunningham

"Robert A. Cunningham" wrote:

> "Eric" > wrote
> > Useful Info wrote:
> >>
> >> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
> >
> > My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than
> > $12K.
>
>
> 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.

Graham

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Robert A. Cunningham" wrote:
>
>> "Eric" > wrote
>> > Useful Info wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
>> >
>> > My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less
>> > than
>> > $12K.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Graham

In what respect? Well, for starters, how about 0 to 60 MPH speed: 23
seconds! How would you like to get on a freeway onramp with those numbers?.
Consumer Reports paid $22,000 for the Smart for Two in Montreal. They
averaged 43 MPG. (A Prius goes for $24,000 and averages about 44 MPG). The
ride is harsh and fidgety... handling is clumsy... many controls are small
and confusing... inside, engine clamor fights with wind noise...

CR's take: "Unless the new design is far better, buying a Smart could be
unwise."

Oh, one correction, I originally wrote that CR had said "it was the worst
car they have ever tested." I was wrong, the actual quote was "the Canadian
Smart is one of the worst cars we've tested." I apologize for the error,
but it does not change my opinion of the car.

Robert A. Cunningham

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "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.
>
> Graham
>
>

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.

Mike

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