I have a co-worker who bought a Smart Car and it prompted me to look up the specs on it and it just leaves me with one question. Why would anybody buy one? Now mind you, I'm not talking about horsepower, etc, but primarily the price vs what you get for your money.

The top of the line Smart car's price rivals the Fit's @ $17,045
The Fit's rivals or beats the Smart Car's mpg of 33/41
The Smart Car has a top speed of 90 mph
Cargo room. Well, no real need to go there.

With all the econo-box and sub compacts that are out there that are less expensive and are more utilitarian, why on earth would anybody buy a Smart car? It really can't be just so they can scream, "Hey look! I have a teenie car!"

I don't bash what people drive/ride as everybody buys for their own reasons but I do try to understand their reasoning. I went to the Fit as I wanted a smaller car that was economical (to buy and operate) and was still able to carry out its duties as a family car but there's no way a Smart car can do that.

Thoughts?

 

I've seen this discussed on car forums to no end. About the only logical thing that can be said as far as advantages go, is it's small footprint, which can be useful to an urbanite. Then there is the quirky factor, which I can understand. There is nothing like them on the road. Fwiw, they look and sound pretty cool with some mods.

edit: For example, this guy has two cars and pays for one spot at his condo.



Smarts gettin' it on in the city:



And of course - this:

 

that last pic is awesome!

 

It starts at $11,990... what's the point?[/quote]
The Fit's rivals or beats the Smart Car's mpg of 33/41
[/quote] The fit is rated at 27/33 or 28/35 depending on model. You're comparing the EPA ratings to what drivers self-report as their own accomplishments. To compare the cars, use a scientific benchmark that is identical - in this case the Smart has 22% better fuel economy than the Fit in the city, 24% better on the highway. Yes, many Fit drivers claim better mileage. I'd bet many Smart drivers do the same. I never take my Fit on roads that are sign-posted over 70...You could make a similar argument for the Accord...

A Fit at $18000 (just a WAG, consider it the average of Sport/Nav models) for 48 mos at a 6% interest rate for 48 mos would be $422/month. $21,000 for the same term at 1% interest would be $447. They could easily be crosshopped by buyers entering a dealership.

So, why buy a Fit when an Accord is:
- more refined
- much roomier.
- 25 mpg combined vs 29 mpg combined - The Fit is only 16% more economical - a smaller difference than the Smart vs the Fit.
- arguably safer in a collision - same all around crash ratings, but more mass for head-on safety.

Yeah, yeah, the Accord is so conventional, so boring... just like a Fit to a Smart buyer. We all have different preferences in our cars - for some, the Smart, or the Fit for that matter will be oddball choices that won't satisfy. For others, either will be a slam-dunk.

I bought a Fit, and am quite satisfied with it, so it's clearly a slam dunk for me, but may not be to someone else. No harm, no foul.

 

Maybe the Fit doesn't necessarily compare as Occam pointed out, but as long as you can get a sub-compact for $10k-$12k that gets you marginally worse fuel economy than a FourTwo in exchange for a back seat, I cannot imagine why you would choose a FourTwo over say a Yaris or a Versa.

 

Nothing to compare.

SmartCar is a single purpose vehicle. A two-seater local commuter car PERIOD
Most other cars serve more than one purpose, like you can go shopping and bring home a few bags of groceries.
W/ a SmartCar you can go shopping and bring home a six-pack - maybe, but you can park 90d to all the others - so what.

 

People spend more on Harleys... two seats, minimal luggage, can park them @ 90 degrees. Who would buy a Fit over say, a Road King?

They are competing in two completely different markets.

 

HA! We agree Occam - my point precisely.. Two different beasts.

The SmartCar is a wonderful - limited purpose - vehicle.

It stands alone - closest competition is a Segway.

 

Obviously motorcycles and cars are completely different markets. Motorcycles have a completely different purpose than cars - you ride them for speed or enjoyment. Fuel efficiency is a fringe benefit, lack of cargo is not even a consideration.

I am not so sure about the Smart and other sub-compacts. Both are essentially inexpensive, small, efficient commuter cars. They overlap quite a bit. You buy both to get you to work, the store, etc.

Actually, that's pretty much the problem. The FourTwo would be a wonderful limited purpose vehicle....if it wasn't for the price tag. If its closest competitor really was a Segway, well it costs double what a Segway costs. Since the Segway is way overpriced for what it is, the FourTwo is ridiculously overpriced for what it is.

If you could get a FourTwo for $8000 it'd be fairly attractive. If you could get a FourTwo for $5000, it'd almost be silly NOT to get one.

But for $12000 it seems impossible to justify even if I lived in a city where parking was almost impossible to find.

 

Chalk it up to the cost of being "environmentally correct".

Corporate America is going to make a fortune on this concept, at the expense of us and the environment - and the Gulf continues to fill with oil... because CA does not have a solution.

 

has everyone seen the new Scion IQ coming out later this year? it's supposed to be just a little bit bigger than the smart car. it looks way more aggressive.

 

The scion IQ in that image at least is outfitted with a custom body kit. You can even call it a us concept, it looks aggressive now but when Toyota brings it later it will be stripped of all its coolness and will look equally as good or bad as the smart. The reason all manufactures do it is because American will never pay top dollars for fancy equipment in a tiny econobox/city car. I heard the Toyota IQ in Japan goes for mid to upper 20k.

I think smarts are niche driven cars. Just as with our fits it caters to some buyers and other will think why would you want one?

 

But people buy Harleys over other motorcycles that do more (faster, offroading abilities, better handling, smoother engines) because they want them. Because at some point, people buy vehicles for reasons other than sheer logic. Cars and motorcycles aren't toasters. And if buying a limited car that makes them smile over a 'reasonable' car that makes them yawn - sounds like the best bang for their buck. Having owned a Jeep Wrangler, a horrible, impractical daily driver that you love to drive, I can understand the appeal.

 

The Smart is easier to park than a Fit. That's all I see in it. Based on it's "expected" reliability from numerous quality and mechanical evaluations, the Smart is well over-priced, even at $12k, equivalent to the Honda Fit at more than $30k. Knock the price down to $5k and I might get one as a "throw-away".

 

What the Smart represents is an early attempt to win America over to an idea that works remarkably well in urban -market Europe. The "city-car" has done well there, and in Japan as the "kei" class because they are dealing with a different infrastructure, and a different attitude about driving in general. The Smart made it to the US because someone (whose name I don't know) worked hard to get them here, get them federalized, crash tested, and sold through an established dealer network. I wouldn't buy one over a Fit, but LOTS of people in the DC area have, they are a dime a dozen here. In that regard the Smart experiment has been moderately successful. And it has encouraged other manufacturers to follow suit. The Toyota/Scion IQ is a remarkable piece of engineering, did you know that they re-engineered the A/C system to fit in the center console to allow more leg room for the third passenger? Or that the power steering mechanism is specifically designed to take up less room in the front of the car to allow for moer interior space? I read the the tech in the IQ could allow Toyota to build a SEVEN SEATER YARIS!! Whether you would buy a Smart is immaterial, as a car nut, you just gotta love this stuff!

 

TOo bad they shitcanned the Roadster:



Turbocharged 80-hp 700c 3-banger, rear mounted... wind it up with a sequential-shift gearbox. Not a lot of power, but it only has to push 1800 lbs!

I saw a few of them last time I was in Europe ('06). So cool!

 

A better question is why buy anything other than an old CRX HF.............50 mpg, regular gas, $2000? oh yeah, and obscenely fun to drive

 

pointless............zero trunk space, probably 30 mpg, slower than my civic

 

Again, fun over practical, sensible, boring function. The same reason someone would buy a CR-X over a perfectly sensible Civic Wagon 20 years ago. In this case, a perfect motorcycle analogy.

UK MPG rating is 55.8 combined, which would be 46.5 in US MPG.

It's like a modern MG Midget or an Austin-Healey Sprite. Who would want the fun of a lightweight tossable roadster when they could have a station wagon!

 

CR-X got better mpg than Wagovan....and still worse than CR-X

and can't possibly be fun........has autotragic trans