He should have stated "irregardless of crash test performance, we decided to denote the safety and crash worthiness of the Smart car with a 5 star rating due to the generous lobbying money Mercedes was kind enough to confer upon the NHTSA"

Wow, if the side impact test results were that bad and still got a 5 out of 5, how bad were the front impact test results that got a 3 and 4 out of 5?

Pointless car. If you want good gas mileage their are plenty of other options that actually provide something worthy of being classified as an automobile.

Pointless safety rating.

The star safety rating can only be used to compare against other vehicles in the same weight range. As such the Smart's results should be compared to other vehicles within 400lb of which there are none sold in the US.

I wouldn't be caught dead driving one of these cars. For one it's a chick car. Two it's a death trap. Regardless of how hig gas prices get, I'd rather drive a gas guzzeling SUV then this coke can of a car.

LOL...
I kinda figured one of these articles would pop up on this blog eventually.

When we purchased our SMART, I made it a point to ask my friend (who works for the Mercedes dealer we buy our vehicles from) if he had ever heard of any of his customers getting in an accident. Truthfully... no marketing bs.

He admitted that one of his clients got knocked asunder near his home, on the opposite side of the city of our home. Again out in the countryside.
SMART surivived, the driver survived... but apparently it was a wild ride... he was surprised he walked away considering how fast the other vehicle was going.
Thankfully that driver is alive and well.

Taking this info into consideration, we still purchased the SMART, and use it to boot into the nearby town to do some shopping, or to neighbouring homes, or to go down to the golf course. Nothing really significant. With the road rage going on and about in the city near us, we would not dare drive it into the downtown core, for that we have our other vehicles if we go to visit friends, or need to shop for bigger items.

Oh, and as mentioned....
5 stars only means 5 stars vs other vehicles of its size...

No amount of safety can counteract the forces of physics.

I can't believe this car is selling well. I know gas prices are high and I'm being negatively affected as well, but the car is so ugly, underpowered, and dangerously tiny and light.

I guess it's a "trendy" car. I wonder how long this car will survive in the American market.

Who at the NHTSA decided make golf carts DOT street legal and give them a crash rating? Keep them on the golf courses. Embarrassing.

I hope all the "Greens" buys one of these toy cars and then hits a big as gas guzzling SUV. How's your moral superiority now?

To crawlgsx:

It's not a pointless car to me. Every 2 of these sold and driven in NYC means an extra parking spot for me an my fellow city slickers.

smart EPA: 33/41
honda hybrid: 40/45
prius: 48/45
honda civic: 25/36
corolla: 26/35

seriously, this car should be getting 50/60 at least. I cant believe its getting worse mpg than a car that weights almost twice as much (prius at ~2900 lbs, smart ~1600 lbs)

I saw one on the highway the other day, doing more then 65 mph. All I have to say is 80,000 lbs truck or even the 25,000 lbs truck I was driving vs 1600 lbs car at 65 mph+ equals no more 1600 lbs car, including the person/s inside of it.

now, if i mount this Smart on the bumper of my Escalade, will i also get 5 stars?

why not get a honda fit that has the same or better mileage and is a lot more practical with the cargo space it offers?
I don't get this car at all.

I agree...don't get the point of this car either. Mileage comparable to a Honda Civic, yet it costs more than a Civic and you can't carry anything unless it's in the passenger seat.

If it got about 50/60mpg and cost half of what a Civic costs, then you can call it Smart.

Yes they are small, but 35 to 40 miles a gallon is still a lot better than most 15 mpg SUV's. I personally wouldn't buy one. I don't like the efficiency to size ratio. They do turn heads and I welcome more of them on the road. Most people don't have fear of crashing foremost in their minds. I know I don't.

Cause for concern? No kidding. Just look at the damn thing.

All these comments from SUV drivers about the Smart being too small to be safe amuse me.

Pit one of your 6,000lbs SUV's against a 60,000lbs tractor trailer, and you aren't going to fair much better than a Smart. I've seen trucks steam roll right over full sized vans. It ain't pretty. The best option is to not get in an accident in the first place, and SUV's aren't known for being exactly 'nimble.'

On the other hand, the Smarts mpg rating is a pitiful achievement, given it's size and lightness, and performance. I'm not sure what's so 'smart' about it, other than how it's marketed.

People considering a Smart: Consider buying a used Civic instead. You'll save money, get better milage, and have a vehicle most garage mechanics are familiar with. Far better deal, there.

And you SUV drivers? Consider a Caravan. Really. Your denial is just sad.

cute but deadly

Kw: So what you can say that about a semi getting hit by a train, so what's your point? There are more cars and trucks on the roads then there are semi's. Your odds of getting hit by a car or truck is much greater then getting hit by a semi. So there for an SUV would fair far greater in a wreck against cars and trucks then this golf car piece of crap.

www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

I suggest replacing the 3cyl 1L with an electric motor, limiting the thing to 25mph and calling it "The Safest NEV in America"

There is a problem as pointed out in that video. No one would survive that at 70 mph. But how can people walk away from 200 mph crashes when racing? Simple, crumble zones. They absorb the impact so the driver doesn't take the full force. The Smart Car has no such zones, at least not large ones. Also, the cage around the driver/passengers should never have major failure, because that would mean serous injury or death.

Taking the above into account, look at when the Smart Car and Benz crashed head on. The Smart Car had the Benz wrapped around it. The Benz had crumpled to absorb the impact. The drivers of that Benz would have most likely walked away with out any major injuries, the Smart Car passengers not so lucky. Also look at how the car completely fell apart minus the cage in the 70 mph test. The roof shattered and other debris went flying every where, if the crash didn't kill them, the debris most likely would have. When we look at the other car, no major debris at all, and it crumbled better, so less impact on the drivers. It's great that it's doors still opened and closed, but that doesn't matter if your dead.

So to retort, I will take my 6,000 lbs SUV, because I don't have to worry about the roof shattering on my face, and the vehicle will absorb that impact, increasing my chances to live. Also, my 5000 lbs truck that I drive happens to sit lower to the ground then most of the Fords, Dodges, and Toyotas that you see on the road. My father's sits even lower, but that is because he is 2wd and I am 4wd. Chances of me rolling over, not very likely unless I am doing something the vehicle wasn't designed to do, like racing around at 100 mph, or taking turns at 50 mph when the posted limit is 35.

The reason a driver can walk away from a 200mph crash is because the true impact speed was likely much lower. From 200mph, if the driver's deceleration occurs over at least a 45ft distance he probably walks away; if it occurs over less than 13ft he most likely dies. This is based on 30g's for walk away and 100g's for fatality. (NOTE: The survivability record is 179g's)

At 70mph: Fatality is expected at 19" of deceleration space. Walk-away is expected at 66."

These distances include any amount that the "target" is shifted. Real world distance would actually be longer since this model assumes uniform deceleration throughtout the range of the crumple zone. Moral: Don't expect to walk-away from a 70mph crash into a substantial stationary object regardless of what SUV you drive.

The crash-test with the Benz is especially deceptive. In Europe, cars have requirements for pedestrian safety. The Smart in the video benefits from this - it would not necessarily fair as well if an American car of the same mass were involved. (But one can say that a Smart driver is better protected than a pedestrian.)

As for rollover, the Smart is the tippiest car tested by the NHTSA this year, scoring about the same as a some SUVs (e.g. Ford Expedition.)

Lol, I love the moronic SUV drivers who all try and put this on the highway.

This is not a rural cruising, highway car. Its a city car. Three of these can fit in one parallel parking spot that you can barely park your SUV in in the first place.

Also, the EPA mileage is not exactly spot on. This car has few to no modifications from the European version, and the Euro's are getting into the fifties range. The diesel version gets 70mpgs.

Also, its far more maneuverable than just about anything else on the road.

Anyway, you redneck, asshole pee brains out in the sticks who have to pump your male image with oversized trucks, I bid you farewell.

Silly, silly car. If you're not overly image-conscious, buy a Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris instead and get better quality, reliability, value, practicality, and safety.

"SteelCity1981:

Kw: So what you can say that about a semi getting hit by a train, so what's your point? There are more cars and trucks on the roads then there are semi's."

Sounds like we would be insane to drive anything but a semi. Or a train, for that matter.

My point is that we shouldn't be making our purchase decisions based on some sort of mass oriented arms race. I know people who's car use habits scream '4 door sedan' to me, but who bought extended cab pickups 'for safety.' That's not rational.

IMO this car is a good idea for an inner city vehicle. It is not intended as an Interstate cruiser, but as a stop and go rush hour car. That said, I would think the mileage would be much better.

As to the off-topic, If you are of the "turtle" mentality, that's fine, buy what you want, it's your money and fuel. Just stay out of the fast lanes, please.

Every day I have to deal with people who insist that their SUV's, trucks and minibuses are perfectly capable of being in the fast lane at 80+mph here in Atlanta (Atlanta must be the truck and SUV capital of the world).

I have news for you. You know how you hate being behind a semi truck? Well guess what, you're in that category as far as everyone else is concerned. Move the hell over. You are in the way, you cannot maneuver well, and you are also blocking everyone's vision behind you.

At 80-90 mph you are barely able to stay in your lane. You bought a turtle, drive in the turtle lanes. Safety is why you bought it, right?

Ya all aren't getting the reason for the smart... Parking and city congestion.... American cities, aside from NYC are not as congested as other countries because so many people live in the suburbs. Parking is also a non issue here, though it's getting to be as people move back into the cities. The Smart fills that purpose... Mileage and safety are not a huge deal when you drive the car in the city mostly at under 50 mph and the other cars are small or bicycles... So yeah, if you live in like the burbs, there is no reason to buy a Smart over a honda, but if you live downtown like me, a Smart can park anywhere, and how often do you pack your SUV with people? Most of the time it's you going to work... I just don't understand why a car like that with a 3 cylinder engine gets such crappy milage.. I'd rather have a Mini which is much larger but gets better milage and more utility... Nuff said.

Totally unsafe.

If I see a child car seat/booster on a car like this I think I would get sick on the spot.

It cannot absorb any impact whatsover, it is just a rigid steel coffin.

There's something that most of these responses seem to be missing here...

I honestly don't have a problem with people wanting to buy a Smart car despite their many disadvantages. What I am suprised about, though, is that nobody is mentioning that Smart cars make our roadways less safe.

The track width versus wheelbase length make the car inherently less stable in yaw manuevers (lane changes, emergency evasion, etc.). The lack of mass, cheap suspension setup, and skinny tires make the vehicle less stable and forgiving in braking manuevers, and definitely in conditions with compromised traction (rain, sleet, ice, leaves, sand, etc.). The worst thing, though, is the construction of the car's body. It is designed, much like cars in the 60s, to be strong and not yield upon impact - since the Smart car is relying on the vehicle it collides with to absorb the kenetic energy from BOTH CARS, the survivability for passengers in both vehicles is decreased.

If it were just a matter of the Smart car drivers deciding to take a calculated risk on their own behalf (like motorcycle riders), that would be one thing... but when they go on the road, they are driving vehicles that endanger other people as well.

Oh please, all this physics crap has got to stop. Somewhere along the way "the science" has gotten you all so fooled real world crashes don't matter any more. If that is how it fails in the lab then that MUST be how it fails in the real world.....

Example, 77 Chevy Caprice classic vs. 93 Jeep Wrangler (with minor off road mods). The jeep merging left off the interstate directly into the side of the Caprice (average speed of Caprice 50 mph).

Winner, 77 Caprice....WTF? HOW CAN THAT BE, it has no impact beams, or air bags, and it's made of 6000 lbs of solid detroit steel (you know the sucky of suckiest metals on earth). Why does did my mom barely realize someone hit her (and did maybe $500 worth of damage)? And why did the jeep loose part of the suspension and probably cause $3000+ in damages? BECAUSE IT'S A BIG HEAVY SOILD CAR. Not just BIG and HEAVY, but it's solid.

Don't get me wrong, the idea of a crumple zones is great. Like everyone has pointed out, it was born from racing. Impact that wall at 200 mph, well something needs to slow you down to a reasonable force or your brain is just going to rattle around in there. But take that same idea, scale it down times 20, and what does that give you? Cars that crumple just by touching them. Ever see the "fender bender" on the side of the road, ever been in one? How fast were you going, 30?, 20? 10? 5?....oh yes... that 5mph crash bumper has probably worked. And worked in a fashion as to bend, crack, and warp all the other sheet metal touching it. Lovely design indeed. That little accident just cost you several hunderd (if not more).

As a last thought. 88 Dodge Omni (you want an under powered commuter car)...(well except the GLH model, oh snap)... See the Omni has an offest bumper design (much like the later VW bettle designs from the 70's. My best friend backed his into a tree doing probably 15 mph, you know what? Besides being like WTF?!.. and a little shaken up the "car" was fine. We piled out and saw the large dent in the bumper, kicked it a couple time to make sure it wasn't going to fall off, got back in and went about our way. No muss, no fuss, simple.

Do any of you SUV-happy-slappies have any idea how long this car would take to get up to 70mph in the first place? :)

It's not a viable argument, and you are simply trying desperately to justify your huge, annoying, stupid vehicles by picking on this one as a type of diversion.

They are designed for city driving only, little trips to and fro, which you with your bloody SUVs should be BANNED from doing unless towing something or in some other way actually having a requirement for what is a small freighter... ie, no taking little Timmy to school and utilising 10% of the interior space of the vehicle like a complete idiot with no concern whatsoever for anyone else.

Somebody mentioned how unsafe the Smart makes the roads for others... God I love hypocrisy. Do you have any idea how unsafe SUVs make the road for normal car drivers? Side-on collision: SUV comes through window level instead of the door, where the impact protection beams are. Meets head. Nice one. Try again.

And these are the proper mileage figures for these cars, converted from the Euro l/100km ratings.

Town/Highway

Gas: 38/59
Diesel: 37/69
Hybrid: 48/60

At least, in Europe... God knows what they've managed to do to them over there if they're so low on mileage all of a sudden, or someone has their facts oh so very wrong.

Sorry, diesel should have been 69/73 for mpg figures.

Sorry Greg.

But the mileage numbers you cite are derived based on the "New European Driving Cycle" which produces somewhat inflated numbers as compared to the real world. After all, who uniformly accelerates to 70k/h [44mph] in ~40 seconds?

The new for 2008 EPA algorithm provides the best estimate to date. (and that took how long to fix?)

At least give yourself a pat on the back for doing the conversion correctly. (Folks often cite mileage figures from the UK which uses the imperial gallon which is 1.2 US gallons)

@Brian:

You need a little re-education, son...
1. "Real-world" crash results are governed by physics.
2. Crumple zones weren't derived from racing technology.
3. Bumpers used to be federally reuired to sustain no significant damage from 10mph (or 15mph, I forget).

Your assertion that older cars survive crashes better than new ones is correct. It isn't hard to build a body-on-frame car that will look relatively untouched even in a high-speed collision. What you're missing is that people rarely survived those types of collisions. The kinetic energy transferred to a rigid body in a collision as "slow" as 10mph is immense (p=mv, even though you appear to hate facts). The object isn't to keep the car looking nice, the object is to try to keep the occupants alive. Yeah, bummer - I know.

Race cars use collapsable structures to try to absorb kinetic energy. That's not really the same thing as designing a crumple zone in a space frame. Race cars generally also have the benefit of other devices (HANS, tire walls, soft walls, sandtraps, etc.) to reduce the eventual impact force.

The bumpers you remember were a federal mandate that was dropped in the '70s during the oil crisis. Those bumpers weighed a ton and didn't really increase accident survivability. It was determined a fuel economy benefit that you would ALWAYS realize was more valuable than the relatively rare event of a fender bender.

I would suggest you take some remedial physics, just so you understand the value of the subject. I'd also suggest reading Bubba551's post.

@bubba551

Whilst I agree with you about the 40s to 70km/h matter, I have to call foul on the EPA's figures also (which, from reading, are notoriously and laughably inaccurate). Talked to my friend with a CDi ForTwo to ask how he does and whilst he doesn't get the 3.3l/100k quoted by Smart, he does get 3.6-4.0l/100k with a mixture of a bit of motorway driving and city driving when going to and from work every day (about 25k on the motorway and 10k off) doing around 120km/h on the motorway and sticking roughly to the 50km/h off of it.

The EPA figures for this car really are nonsense. I cannot comment in so much detail on the petrol version, however the figure bandied around in collective consciousness is around 5l/100 combined.

@Greg

Foul acknowledged.

I am not surprised that people in Smarts exceed the EPA estimate.

While the current EPA numbers are probably the best so far for typical driving, the biggest flaw are the assumptions made regarding what is typical for a driver of a given car. These tests assume that all drivers drive the same, but does a Smart driver and a performance car driver truely drive the same?

I exceed the EPA estimate by about 11% when I travel, and drive semi-conservatively. I miss the EPA estimate by 10-15% in daily driving. So is the EPA estimate too high or too low?

Is a Smart driver more likely to drive conservatively? Other than Al Gore III, have you ever heard of a Prius driver driving at excess speed?

.

A Hummer H2 may be considered a "penile extension", but this car introduces something new never seen on American roads: "penile removal".

Oh, bubba551, yes I see Prius pricks speeding all the time. Just because some asswipe buys a hybrid because of the fake global warming scare does not make them law-abiding saints of the road. They are jerks just like the rest of us.

@bubba551

Good point on the Prius, I have to say... never has so much wool been pulled over the eyes of so many people. Still, it's not as bad as the REAL wolves in sheep's clothing, the Lexus RX/GS/LS. I have to hand it to Toyota... people with these big beasts, still using more fuel then a small, economical car, saunter into the London downtown, bypassing the congestion fee, because they have a hybrid. Classic. Toyota must be wetting themselves laughing.

I thought of another element regarding mileage... our fuel is also higher octane... this means essentially that we don't have to bury our foot as much to accelerate at the standard we desire. Whilst it may be a reasonably small difference I am willing to bet it does make enough of a difference to change average fuel usage.

Oh, and to be honest... most Smart drivers tend to be nutters driving them like the go-karts they, in reality, really are.

There is no point in this car as it doesn't offer anything groundbreaking other then the size... I would much rather get a Mini.

Octane level doesn't really alter the energy content of the fuel. It prevents pre-detonation under (very) high cylinder pressures which would not normally occur under part throttle conditions such as in these tests.

Also, the Smart sold in the US specifies 91 octane fuel as a minimum. I know that sounds low but 91 octane measured on the (R+M)/2 scale is roughly 95 on the RON scale that is used in the EU. In other words, it's really not differences in the car or the fuel that accounts for the lower numbers in the EPA test - it's just the test itself. (It's a good estimate for the US driver - it's easy to beat if you try, but most of us rarely bother.)

I went out of my way to test drive a Smart last summer. I was expecting a sort of successor to the Honda CRX, but was dissappointed. I suspect that the transmission alone will keep it from competing effectively. A few people will buy one to prove how "green" they are (and they won't drive like "nutters".) Others will buy just to use as a rolling billboard. Most will just buy a Yaris, Fit, or Mini.

Completely agree about the gearbox... bloody awful, lurchy thing. Had one once when my car was in the workshop.

With a few modifications though I believe the smart could be quite a good little town runabout.

smart EPA: 33/41
honda hybrid: 40/45
priushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius : 48/45
honda civic: 25/36
corolla: 26/35

____________________________________________

I can confirm that the smart actually does 60/72mpg and the new one that is due to be released will have better fuel economy of 65/76mpg.

The gearbox is lurchy as its a manual gearbox running like an automatic but is a massive improvement over the previous model.