Just because it held together doesn't make it safe. That "rigid" cell instantly transfers about 100Gs of acceleration to occupants... instant death.

Same reason why modern F1 cars are designed to come apart in a collision whereas a few years back they were rigid. Crumple zones/energy absorption are essential!

 

no matter what car you're in, you are going to die if you hit a wall at 70mph

 

Remember that the cars are tested at low speeds to protect the occupants. No car protects against stupidity.
Wrecked Exotics - Car Crash Picture, Exotic Cars, car wreck, crash test, car crash photo, car wreck picture, car crash test, picture of car crash, car crash pic,

Or do a YouTube search for exotic wrecked car. There are tons of slideshows showing wrecked cars, like this one:
YouTube - Luxury car crashes

The Smart car is safer to drive than it is to ride a bicycle, scooter, motorcycle. Because if you get hit in a Smart at a low speed, you'd be OK.
YouTube - Crash Test: 2008 Smart Car ForTwo

Human beings have a crumple zone, it's call bone breakage.

 

You say that like there's something wrong with it.

 

I was really interested in the Smart car at one time. I like small cars. After reading many articles about them however, I am no longer interested. They don't get much better mpg's than the Fit and require premium fuel. The worst thing about them is their transmission. I haven't read a single article that didn't criticize it and several said it was the worst transmission ever. I read three articles that specifically said to spend the money on a Honda Fit. If you like the "cuteness" of the smart, I'd say buy an original Mini Cooper and drop an Integra type R engine into it.

 

I must have read the same articles as you did, Riceman! They all thought the transmission was horrible. And they all said to pick the Honda Fit.

Here's a recent article from Consumer Reports:
From the logbook: Honda Fit: Consumer Reports Cars Blog

" While this blog is about the Honda Fit, I can’t help mentioning the Smart ForTwo. You see, when I’m asked about the Smart, the Fit constantly comes up since it’s a natural alternative. Our Smart set us back $15,355. For just a little more money than the attention-grabbing Smart, Honda’s small, four-door hatchback seats three more people, has loads more cargo room, a smoother ride and a better transmission. So far, we’ve regularly seen 40 mpg or more on the highway, regardless of which transmission you choose. Plus – and this is a deal breaker for some – the Smart requires premium fuel; the Fit gladly drinks regular. "

There were THREE things the Smart had that I wanted that the FIT didn't have, leather seats, heated seats, and a glass roof. Those were the big attractions for me. The mileage is good, but it wants Premium.

 

i would be interested if the smart came with a mercedes turbo inline 3 like in the european countries but when in the states i hate them. they are slow and get bad mileage and are rather pointless IMO.
a manual transmission would be sweet too but i dont think there is room for the stick and a clutch.

 

I agree. But would you rather take your chances in a dumb SMART car or a Fit? ;)

 

The Smart car was designed for the small European streets, it is a city car in it's purist form and NOT a car for super high MPG. Which is obvious since it only gets 41 on the highway, which is only a few higher than the Fit. Unless you're driving around NYC everyday then I see no real benefit of getting a Smart car, especially in addition to a Fit. Save your money, or use it for something fun on the weekends.

 

You're right, it is a pure city car. Especially with the variations in Europe, like the 80 mpg turbo diesel:
Mercedes-Benz Turbocharged Smart Fortwo Gets 80MPG | GreenCar.com

And the all-electric ED (electric drive) smart:
All-electric Smart car is unveiled - Green Machines- msnbc.com

Here too:
Smart Car of America - All Electric Smart Fortwo

The turbo diesel would be a fine commuter car. Not all that comfortable, necessarily, but with 80 mpg, it would make a lot more sense.

There's the BRABUS model too, but again, it's transmission is weak (good short video, showing those dinky Euro streets, YIKES):
YouTube - Car test Smart Fortwo Brabus

don't even think about an Escalade on those streets, LOL!

 

okay...i watched the video, and obviously the car does not have much crumple zone...it is tiny. I think, for the size of the car, it does very well. It is obvious there is going to be more damage to the passengers when the car could fit inside the back of a station wagon hahaha. The city driving these cars are meant for would not exceed lower speeds, and therefore, wouldn't have the chance of hitting anything at 70mph. I don't think I would drive it on a highway if I ever had one...we have taken these cars to be daily drivers and people are driving them everywhere they would drive a normal car. Initially at least, these are not what the cars were used for.

I also hate the guy that is speaking throughout the video, I get what he is saying about smaller vs. larger cars in the case of the smart. However, generalizing that smaller cars are more unsafe than larger cars is BS. I won't tell you how many hours I spent convincing my parents that I would be safe in a Fit vs my Audi A6 *last car* when I needed them to cosign for me. In the past I think this "bigger is better" idea may have been the truth when there were not as many safety features but now it is certainly not.

haha neither, but obviously a fit. i'm not saying i would have one, i'm just saying they hold up a lot better than you'd think in an accident.

 

I don't see the point in buying a 2009 Fit and THEN getting a SECOND job to buy a smaller, less versatile car with only marginally better gas mileage? You won't save money in gas. You will be making an extra car insurance and car payment PLUS be filling up two gas tanks. Worst idea ever.

Unless you just REALLY REALLY REALLY want a Fit AND a Smart. :p

 

if you really want to save gas get a Honda Nighthawk 234 cc, goes 80 and gets like 75-80 mpg for $4K