<![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive - Jalopnik Comments]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive - Jalopnik Comments]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> For those questioning safety.

+ Watch video

or get the special mod.

Though that could really hurt parking.

prndl

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @GTRider60:

Except that your Fit doesn't get 34/41 (not anymore anyway) the smart's 33/41 mpg is based on the new EPA regulations (in which the fit only gets 27 city 34 highway)

[www.fueleconomy.gov]

stormer13

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> BY RAWTOAST AT 01/22/08 01:29 PM
"I can't think of one reason why I'd buy this thing over a Honda Fit."

My thoughts exactly! My Fit is a great small car and it gets 34 mpg city 41 mpg highway. Yep, Smart is almost a decade late---there are more cars available with almost the same milage figures. If it was 50 mpg highway and 40 city, that might be worth something...

GTRider60

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> The smart is really about being agile with options. It can haul 2x the usual load most cars carry (one person)- it can turn on a dime, parks where nobody else can (at least on my block there are 4 spaces between driveways m-a-d-e for smarts.. and it still offers way more safety that the Yaris. Furthermore, the car tested is the cabrio. For a leather, heated seats, abs, 4 airbags, tcs, ac Passion, it's under $15k. It's a total value for a two seat rwd coupe.

I've spent some time on a smart forum site and one thing that's pretty interesting to me is what cars the posters on that site own now, as they wait for their fortwo to arrive. Predominantly, it's people with much bigger cars: Cayennes, F-150s, Passats, T-birds, CX-7, Volvo 960, Mazda 3, S-2000, Jeep Commander... point being, the big , scary cars y'all seem to think will terrorize smarts- are the cars smart owners (or potential owners) already have.

anthony94114

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @mad_science:

"massive acceleration" - that's an interesting way to put it.

you're right, momentum is a big issue. But if an F1 driver can crash into an immovable barrier (infinite mass) at 200mph and walk away, then obviously it isn't impossible to tame that huge acceleration. Energy absorption technology is possible, but it takes some engineering fortitude.

Automakers have apparently convinced a large segment of buyers that heavy=safe. It's just not that simple.

my favorite car is a motorcycle

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @DWMILLER:

And your HHR was 5 years too late.

and the PT Cruiser has been discontinued.

GM is so innovative!!!

darex

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @laxman15: It does have crumple zones. Sheesh.

Wes Siler

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @BADCO-FASCISM: are you seriously not understanding what it said. It is actually the opposite of what you said. It activates the crumple zones of other cars...say...a 5500 lb tahoe, but it is less safe when hitting a wall because it doesn't have crumple zones. And anyway, what car does stand that much of a chance against a 5500 lb tahoe?

laxman15

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Maymar: Absolute weights do not matter in a collision as long as the car you are in weighs the same or more than the other vehicle. And unless you want to pack the inside of your head with peanuts, there is nothing you can do to prevent the soft brain getting smooshed against the inside of the hard skull.

@eltonito: Again, momentum = mass x velocity. So, a Smart at 30 mph has the same momentum as a normal car at 60 mph or an SUV at 90 mph. Momentum is bad when you are trying to corner, brake, or accelerate, which is why heavier cars and trucks are inherently less safe in accident ***avoidance***. Momentum, however, is your friend if a collision does happen because it opposes the potentially lethal acceleration and deceleration forces.

I love light nimble cars but I will keep mine at the low end of the average weight (2500 lb) as long as there are people in Excursions.

DieterX

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @DieterX: In order for fatal G's to be hit you'd have to have a spectacular crash with substantial speed/acceleration. So much so that even a Volvo might not save your brains.

My 2000lb Subaru Justy was T-boned by a 4000lb Dodge Dakota midsize pickup that was doing about 35mph at the moment of impact, decelerating from about 50MPH. I was hit at the seam of the door and the front quarter panel. My car travelled a fairly good distance sideways (I'd estimate 20 yards) and spun about 130 degrees. My car was more or less pushed out the way. I walked away with minor scratches and whiplash and the other guy had a slight concussion and some bleeding from hitting the windshield, even with his seatbelt on.

Given the fact the SMART was designed and intended to be a city car, few of them should see collisions where speeds are higher than 45MPH which makes such brain injuries less likely.

eltonito

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Man. Weird hearing lefties go all Bushy. This science vs. belief thing really is tough!

beercheck

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @DieterX: While that is true, the market for this car is city dwellers. I've ridden a bike around nyc for years. I would have no fear of driving this thing around the city. Besides the >mass=safer argument sucks.

dolo54

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I like the idea of a quick and easy urban people mover. That 90 degree parking trick is going to bring the worst kind of attention from the authorities and other crazies. Watch out earlt adopter. How resistant are the panels to keying?

lifeguard1

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @ash78: That's it? Thread over? Fine, at what point does a car weigh enough to be considered acceptably safe? Or, why don't we ban cars that weigh more than 5000lbs for regular drivers? What about filling the thing with packing peanuts?

I'm not arguing that a Smart has a serious disadvantage over the wheeled mammoths so many Americans apparantly need? And it's obvious Mercedes hasn't been negligent in the design of the thing, so shouldn't we be asking what we can do to protect our small car drivers? Automotive obesity is bad enough with feature bloat, I'm afraid of the era of the two-ton subcompact.

Maymar is convinced M.C. Escher engineered his car

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @DieterX:

I can't believe how many comments were made on here before this was pointed out, any collision with this thing that causes a change in direction could easily result in far more G's than a collision of 2 cars of similar mass.

rlj676-new job, same problems

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @DieterX: Thread over. Well-stated and completely true.

The LAST thing I want is for this vehicle to "bounce" off another car and change direction. The Smart may look surprisingly fine, but my brain harshly colliding with the inside of my skull isn't too hot a prospect.

The Name's Ash78, Housewares

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Smart owners only park nose or tail into the kerb once, all it takes is two normal cars to park in close and the owner ends up climbing into the car through the hatch cos the doors are both unopenable...
a great photo for marketing gimmicks, but a gimmick sure enough

muhnkee_2

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @billstewartx: Stay in school. Don't do drugs. Study hard.

And please, don't have kids.

beercheck

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @my favorite car is a motorcycle:

yes true
any idiot who thinks a SUV is safer can read the ACTUAL crash figures from the government..
and sedans like the Benz are the best..
and SUV's are the worst
worse than MOTORCYCLES

wheels OF satan!

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @beercheck:

dude
you are all worked up
race cars smash walls going 180MPH and the drivers walk away
and they weigh less than the smart
the govt crashed them, and gave them a 4 star rating...

see this crash

[www.youtube.com]

wheels OF satan!

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> What kills people in high-speed accidents inside pristinely intact roll cages is the G force applied to the brain resulting in diffuse axonal damage. Elementary physics say momentum is mass x velocity and mass will make the difference between a 50-G impulse that results in concussion and a 250-G impulse that results in brain death. There is absolutely nothing engineers can do to prevent the brain acceleration trauma other than make the car weigh roughly the same as every other car on the road. A red light-running SUV plowing into one of these would be a truly frightening and completely lethal thing.

DieterX

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Man, not a single mention of Zap, who did actually deliver a few cars, the first of which was in Las Vegas.

TorkLugnutz

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @JoeKing: Thanks. That was fascinating.

Bumblebee

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Wes Siler:

Last time I checked, the PT Cruiser was Mexican, not American, unless there's been some pretty radical national boundary changes of which I was unaware.

ranwhenparked

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> The more I read about the Smart, the more I realize it is a one trick pony. "Look at how small it is!" Beyond that, it rides poorly, performs badly, and gets marginal fuel economy. Someone who comes up with this size package in a cars that's get GREAT fuel economy and performs decently will do well. Until then, the Smart is not a "Smart" car.

usa1

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> ... at least over the S-10 crash posted earlier.

JoeKing

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Why has nobody linked to this VIDEO OF A SMART CRASHING.

I would trust my life to it...

JoeKing

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Love it or hate it the smart has got folks thinking and debating. Many current metal go boxes leave much to be desired. You can get from a to b without bunches of mass and without massive impact on the planet, the 42 is proof.

I have never discussed and debated the merits-weaknesses of a car more often than since I got a smart, I find folks around the car wherever it is parked, and bear in mind the car has been in Canada for years, somewhere around 8000 units sold so not a novelty anymore. For this alone, the car has been positive. If Audi brings in the A1, or Mazda the 2 series in the future based on smart, Mini and Yaris sales, then we are all winners.

Not perfect, not for everyone, but with so many car owners and buyers, enough to start the discussion.

Maximum Lutz should take note.

smart42

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> This thing is huge compared to the previous generation. Why do cars keep getting more bloated with every redesign?

xenti

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> One of the problems these cars have run into in Canada is that it only takes about 3 drunks to roll them. There was one parked near the campus bar at my University as part of an advertisement by the local dealer back when they first came out in Canada - a couple of guys figured it would be fun to see how many times they could roll it over before they went home, causing thousands in damage.

In terms of size and space, the Smart is quite comfortable for 2 adults at 6'3" plus, with decent luggage space, but for the $20 000 or so the mid range model cost in Canada I would be happier with a Civic or (last generation) Focus.

Schweppes - Now with more beard

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @my favorite car is a motorcycle: For sure, you win on rollovers.

Re: Mass in a crash.
It's a function of momentum more than energy. Energy is dissipated all over the place, but momentum is completely conserved.

I'm guessing you've seen the trick where a person holds an anvil or other really heavy object on their head/stomach/whatever and it's struck by a hammer? The anvil hardly moves or transfers any blow to the holder, despite how hard you hit it with the hammer.

Same thing happens in truck Vs Smart.

The Smart probably won't crumple and crush the occupants, but it will experience some massive acceleration.

Mad_Science

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @RESPAWN:

honda.com lists the north american base priced civic at $14,810

smartusa.com lists the north american base priced smart at $11,590

I'm no math major but I'm pretty sure a base civic is not 3 grand cheaper then the base smart.

zamafir

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Their seems to be a lot of surprisingly uninformed discussion on smart safety/usability on the Jalop. Here's an idea -- if you believe that this diminutive vehicle is unsafe, too expensive or useless, don't buy one. By the way, they are sold out for something like two years of U.S. production, so get your "market adjustment" big boy trousers on if you are shopping without a "reservation".

Just like the Macbook Air, they will sell every one of them just fine. Once the early adopters figure that smart isn't for them, perhaps a few folks here will pick it up as a sort-of automotive dinghy, and good for them. It doesn't seem to meet my needs (I have a MINI and a scooter, the wife a small wagon), but I appreciate choice. I'll tell you that it's a lot safer than any of my old MGs and Minis and for sure the scoot. Talk about invisible and zero crumple zones...oh the humanity.

Placebo

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Don't dismiss the energy-absorption features and safety cages that most small vehicles have these days.

@ Badco-fascism: I'm not here to claim that the Tahoe is a death trap, but I am sick and tired of hearing the same simplistic pseudo-physics "more mass is safer" argument. Bringing more mass to the collision equation is doubly bad because it typically decreases your manoeuvreability and stopping ability, which are essential to avoid a collision in the first place. If a collision does occur, escalated vehicle mass makes total collision energy dissipation that much greater, and hence the total property damage to both vehicles is greater as well.

So how much of the total collision energy (sum E = sum .5mv^2) is your Tahoe going to absorb? If you smugly say "Not as much as the other guy, 'cause i got mass on my side!", you'd be right. But that's bad for you AND the other vehicle. The only way to minimize injury in an accident to all vehicle occupants is to maximize the energy absorption that each vehicle contributes.

Sadly, this reality is lost on ute drivers who behave as if their battleships are impregnable. That helps explain why, statistically, ute drivers receive a disproportionately high percentage of whiplash and secondary collision injuries. Need I also mention the rollovers due to high CG? All the mass that went into getting a Tahoe a 5-star NHTSA crash rating also helped give it an unimpressive 3-star rollover rating.

Don't buy into the dream that your heavy vehicle is automatically safer than other vehicles that weight substantially less but incorporate much more energy absorption technology.

my favorite car is a motorcycle

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Christo van Gemert: Ah, a brother in arms! I too heart tits.

Bumblebee

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @beercheck: I do agree with you on that one, Sir.

Dr.Danger, I run the Death Star

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Sure would like me one of those there Audi A1s.

beercheck

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Dr.Danger: As an LA resident and PT rider turned long distance car commuter...I'm torn. In fairness, a lot of LA commuting (at low speed) would be well handled by such a vehicle.

...but it really doesn't accomplish anything over a small "real" car. Most parking in LA is in lots w/spaces or meters, where this has no advantage over a Civic.

Most importantly, I think it's up against the problem that the "maximum" use defines the car purchase. Maybe this works as a 2nd or 3rd car. But if I need 1 car to address all my automotive needs, this sure as hell wouldn't do it.

Mad_Science

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> uhm someone can buy one and put a gsxr1000 motor in it plz. lets start a Smart Racing Cup.

mathlabs

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Since you guys only had the 70bhp NA version, I'm gonna guess that the 81bhp turbo motor would be more fun in the big city, where it has a decent amount of get-up-and-go. Enough to scare bigger machines until about 45mph or so - the shitty manumatic 'box takes FOREVER to swap cogs from second to third.

I don't even know why Mercedes bothers quoting the open-road economy (as their figure of choice - 60mpg for the NA motor and 48mpg for the turbo mill). Most fortwos will hardly ever see the wrong side of a 30-mile commute on a freeway, so it only makes sense that an urban figure be touted. Then again, it would make marketing's job so much harder.

Over all, the new fortwo is nice. It improves upon its predecessor in a number of little ways - most noticeable is the turn-in, which doesn't make you feel like you're about to fall over.

It's liberating, compact, economical and reasonably comfortable. On the down side, the ride is a bit stiff, the seats aren't as plush as one would hope, the slushbox makes you feel like you're being rocked to sleep and the pricing is a bit whack.
Mercedes says that it's a "premium compact" but ultimately people would rather buy a bigger car for the same money, as those convey a better sense of perceived value and safety.

Christo van Gemert

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Mad_Science: It would work for some urban areas that have a bad transit system. For example, Atlanta fails when it comes to transportation. Too much traffic, and Marta takes you nowhere. Most cars in the high-traffic times have one person in the car. I like it as an economic city daily driver. Also, what about LA? All those Cali hippies would love an economic Smart car. You could benefit from less space being taken up on the highway.

Dr.Danger, I run the Death Star

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> The concept of crumple zones also offers some safety in the form of deceleration. Even if the core body cage stays intact, if you decelerate a human body too rapidly, internal organs are torn loose and tossed about, resulting in internal injuries and bleeding. But, my discussions are acadmic only; I absolutely think there's a market for the Smart Fortwo, 'tho it is pricey and not as fuel-thrifty as one would hope...

Charles_Barrett - Now with Variable-Valve Timing

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @theeastbaykid: Let me play devil's advocate... parallel parking is inherently safer because you can use the mirror on the outside of your door. The city (should) designate parallel parking in higher traffic areas, and angle parking in lower traffic areas.

Pinkerton

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @beercheck: It is never fun to be hit by a 30mph 3,500lb object. But still, I trust it more then a lot of cars out there. Take the Chevy Aveo 2dr (Please). That car smashes like a tin can.

Have you ever seen the crash test on an S-10? Its a death-trap.

Dr.Danger, I run the Death Star

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Without weighing in, I'll point out that that the safety debate that's taking place here is taking place is evidence enough that it's got a serious stigma to overcome.

(how's that for a terribly worded sentence?)

I will echo others in saying that for the price, you can get a "real" car. If it's really the car designed for dense, congested urban areas it's probably the worst thing to happen to American transportation, as you should be taking public transit in those situations.

For $750 more than the car pictured, I bought a used '06 WRX Wagon with 8k miles. The "bang for the buck" difference is as big as could be.

Mad_Science

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I drive last generation diesel smart, put on a Bilstein suspension, new wheels and low profile rubber and the car is the most fun you can have with your clothes on.
The mileage is in the low 50's. The only reason the new generation smart is a gasser is due to US emission regs, the diesel is still available in europe.

Part of accident stats is the whole avoidance side of the equation, I feel pretty good about my ability to steer, brake or swerve my car before any impact.
Any takers to do the moose avoidance maneuver in an Escalade, Venture mini van or an F150?

smart42

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Wes Siler: I didn't assume, I asked. And I went to the site. They were both 4 stars but the Honda Civic scored higher points. Also better for pedestrian impact. And the Smart Fortwo cannot of course carry children small enough to require being in a rear seat. These also appeared to be front impact only, and not off-center or side impact.

NovaloadMissesPolar

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Dr.Danger: Of course you would. Otherwise, what sort of Dr. would you be.

The well-constructed frame is awesome. Weighing 1700 lbs. and getting hit by 3,500 lbs. moving at a 30mph speed differential isn't so awesome.
Of course, your results may vary.

beercheck

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> drove one in italy a few years back.... in all honesty the tiny wheelbase made it such a fun car to drive.

hazlo1

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Dr.Danger: And Wes Too

Dr.Danger, I run the Death Star

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I agree with Matt, the ForTwo's frame is very well constructed. I would trust it over a lot of other vehicles out there.

Dr.Danger, I run the Death Star

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @93celicagt2: Somebody reads bash.org

Ratieya

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> No mention of the short two-year new-car warranty.

@Garebear: Let's see you park your car in NYC with the windows down.

Hyman Decent

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Maymar: No, by my logic, none of these vehicles are as safe as an E-class. On the roads, which is where the accidents happen, a Smart is not as safe as an E-class. Claiming that they are is irresponsible.

badco/LoJ

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Novaload: 4 star rating is from [www.euroncap.com]

AF6FB

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Although "activating" other crumple zones does mean you aren't crumpling. And I have much better faith in a human's ability to withstand sudden acceleration than I do in their ability to recover from plastic deformation (teehee).

Was it Derrick Warwick who crashed an F1 car into a wall at 160mph or something and walked away.

Or take that airforce guy who did acceleration testing in that rocket sled on rails and stopped in a water trough? He "decelerated" from 600mph to 0 in less than a second I think. Something ridiculous. He didn't need crumple zones.

So yes, I'd rather accelerate than crumple.

nick2ny

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Wes Siler: But you are presenting "activation" of the other vehicle's crumple zones as a positive feature of the Smart when, in reality, it is demonstrative of an inherent shortcoming of the Smart's design. Being very structurally strong is the only thing it's got going for it, while lack of crumple zones and mass are great big problems. Mentioning how nice it is that other vehicles have built in cushions -- as a benefit of the Smart itself -- is what's known as "deflection" or "redirection" in the PR biz, I believe, or "slight of hand" in Vegas, or "politics" in....um....politics..

Personally, I really like the damned things. And, to echo a sentiment expressed all over these comments, I'd totally get one if the price were 40% lower, the mileage were 30% better, or the power were 90% increased.

beercheck

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> In an accident, of course you use the other guys crumple zones. You do in any accident. Any distortion of either vehicle absorbs energy. Would you rather hit a stationary S-class with crumple zones or an ideal, rigid S-class. Not much more than the frame-of-reference changes between that and a real world collision, so yes, you do use other people's crumple zones, in any collision. Its just that the smart expects to take more advantage of the other crumple.

But what happens in smart-on-smart action?

nick2ny

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Novaload: While it's great that you assume things so vocally, you're also doing so inaccurately. The smart is quite tall, the seating position is actually higher than in most traditional sedans. Other vehicle's seeing you simply isn't a problem, neither is safety.

Here's the Smart: [www.euroncap.com]

Her's a "real 'merican car (fuck yeah!): [www.euroncap.com]

Wes Siler

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @beercheck: At no point did I make that argument and it should be noted that the fortwo does have its own crumple zones.

Wes Siler

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @mrickey: Could I get a footnote on the 4 star crash rating? That's hard to believe. There's no way this is "better" than a real car for the US in terms of safety or comfort--it would not even be visible to many vehicles and the bumpers would hit the occupants in the chest/head.

NovaloadMissesPolar

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Wes Siler: Wes, you've been sold a bill of goods. Not having your own crumple zone is NOT as good as having one. Period.

From worst to best (assuming other occupant protections aren't lacking):

Weak cage, no (relative) mass, no crumple zone.
Weak cage, no crumple zone, yes mass.
Weak cage, no mass, yes crumple zone.
Strong cage, no crumple zone, no mass. (Smart Fortwo)
Strong cage, no crumple zone, yes mass.
Strong cage, no mass, yes crumple zone.
Strong cage, yess mass, yes crumple zone.

Some of those, depending on things, could be flip-flopped adjacently, but it's a pretty safe guide.

"Using the other guy's crumple zone" is smoke up your ass. Your salesman totally threw you off the scent of "Hey, wouldn't it be great -- safer, even -- if the Smart's cage was as strong as it is AND it had some crumple zone of its own?" Excellent regurgitation, though.

beercheck

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> If the Buffalo-area Smart dealer is open yet, I'm going to try to get out that way for a test drive. This is one of the few things that could convince me to buy new again, as I'm in the market for a car this year. Believe it or not, it would actually suit my needs, AND it scores higher on the Jalopometer than my Subaru. Plus, I could afford to actually buy one evenwith my current crappy job.

Paul Y. can't think of a better, shorter handle

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Weird, the wife and I saw one in West Linn Oregon at the supermarket on January 2nd.

vincedotcom

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> "...base price of a new Civic is about $3K less than the price of a Smart..."

Hmm, in looking at the Honda page a Civic starts at $14,800 ($15,600 with an automatic).

The smarts are $11,590, $13,590 and $16,590.

I don't see a $3,000 difference there.

As for mileage, the Honda is 25/36. The smart is 33/41. On average, the fuel cost per thousand miles will be about $28 less for the smart.

What else? Crash test rating is 4 stars (as is the Civic).

Head-in parking (or tail-in) is not allowed in the US, but I did read a press relese that smart is working with some of the "target" areas to get that changed.

AF6FB

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> The local fried chicken place delivers with one of these.

Weather and darkness will not be an issue

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Charles_Barrett: Exactly. And preferably while backed up against a brick wall or something sturdy/heavy. Being in a crush-proof container is one thing. Being in a crush-proof container that gets punted a quarter of a mile is something else.

beercheck

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @JayP71: That's true. It has a lot of hurdles to go through to be widely accepted safety-wise. This, oddly enough, in a country that rides motorcycles sans-helmut in many states. Have you seen the safety gear on a lot of the European motorcyclists? Crazy! (Personally, I don't care what you wear on your scab-encrusted head.)

crustyjoe

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Charles_Barrett: As I understand it, the Smart's incredibly strong roll cage basically punches above its weight, literally. You wouldn't expect a vehicle of this size or weight to hit other vehicles as hard as it does. By doing so it effectively uses some of another vehicles crumple zone as its own.

Let's put it this way. I'd much rather be in this Smart [www.euroncap.com] in a crash than a previous generation Voyager / Town&Country / Caravan[www.euroncap.com], or in any car of any size designed before the early '90s.

Wes Siler

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @skaz: It says never on American soil.

Uberdude328i

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @David Thomas: This is the first US spec vehicle to be delivered to a US customer. Don't make Nick show you his plaque. Unofficial imports of the previous generation fortwo did take place in limited numbers and the vehicles are on sale in Canada. Nevertheless, this marks a significant milestone in the vehicle's history.

I'm looking forward to doing a full review of the fortwo in the near future.

Wes Siler

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> "...in a crash it will actually activate the crumple zones on larger cars, using their in-built protection to cushion the Smart's occupants, too."

@beercheck: So I guess this means for ultimate protection, if you hit another vehicle, be sure to hit it really, really hard...

Charles_Barrett - Now with Variable-Valve Timing

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @HDC: Actually, if it was like the MacBook Air, they would require you to hook your smart car to another car when you need to fill the gas tank.

Dr.Danger, I run the Death Star

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I'm trying to be optimistic about the Smart's chances here, but it seems to me the people who need it are too scared to buy it and the people who aren't too scared to buy it, like me, don't want it (its got no guts).

It's also hugely expensive. The Mini, for a similar price, at least has the image of performance (specifically good handling).

Bumblebee

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @David Thomas: I know what you're thinking. "Was it worth sharpshooting the Jalop just to mention a silly cars.com review?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I can't be sure. But being as this is Jalopnik, the most powerful car website on the web, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. "Do I feel lucky?"

Well, do ya, punk?

Bumblebee

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @beercheck: Mmmmm...plush bosom. That's why it's called the Passion Cabriolet.

@944turb0: Yeah, I saw one in Maine like two years. Silly Canadians.

Guys, why even drive in Manhattan? There's these things called subways which kind of work unless you have special needs.

brandegee

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> In the US, Smart Fourtwo is the functional equivalent of the MacBook Air. It appeals to elitist, fashion conscious urbanites. It's overpriced for the level of power and practicality it offers. And it's over-hyped.

HDC

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @ash78: I agree, it too waaaaay too long to release the ForTwo in the US. I just wish they could have continued making the Forfour and Roadster. I was looking at these in '05 and they were around 6,000£ or so. The cost to import would have been too much though.

Dr.Danger, I run the Death Star

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @crustyjoe: The Smart is going to suffer a negative image on safety for awhile. If it performs okay in accidents, without turning it's drivers into chunky salsa, that will improve. Until then it's a car that will fit in the back of a van. That's going to give a lot of folks pause.

JayP71

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> The Smart is first and foremost a fashion statement, and an effective one at that; 10 years old and it doesn't look dated at all. Second it is a car designed for a cogested European environment.

If it can find a market in the size-obsessed US, then fine with me. Besides, if the dollar ever recovers, it may get cheaper.

ccc40821

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @ash78: COTD!

JayP71

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I like the Smart for its concept, for the philosophy behind it. The idea of a modern microcar intended specifically for urban commuters appeals, especially if you're an urban commuter. Parking options - even parallel - open before you like never before. Gas mileage isn't great, but hey - 38mpg beats the vast majority of everything else out there. And if you're using it as your city ride, speeds generally don't get all that high, and impacts will generally be reduced. Exceptions abound, don't everybody all flame me at once.

A car is only as gay as its driver. Gayness of the Smart is a non-issue and perception of such is just dumb. I'd drive it if it were hot pink with racing stripes and be secure in my uninterrupted history of heterosexuality.

I've been seeing one here in Knoxpatch TN for about the last three months, off and on.

That said, I'd rather have BMW's new Isetta concept. That looked slick.

Elhigh

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> If I had 19k burning a hole in my pocket I might buy one of these. Then again, I may just form a massive team of 38 at Le Mons.

CARBOMB

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I think many publications have driven it and written about it in the U.S. Including *cough* cars.com *cough*

still an excellent post though. We were gonna check out a smart dealer this week in Chicago. Cars are supposedly arriving at dealers everywhere now.

Rabbi Dave

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @anaxomander: I know exactly where it is.

Triborough

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @nick2ny: ah that's super cool! I saw a cream and black one a couple days go downtown on ave. b. they are amazingly small. seems to take up as much space as a motorcycle parked on an angle. pretty amazing. the gas mileage really sucks though, maybe drop a hayabusa engine in it. I would love to drive this thing: [www.youtube.com]

dolo54

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @crustyjoe: What are you talking about? The Peterbilt's built-in crush zones will totally protect you, wrapping you in its plush bosom of comfort and security.

beercheck

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @eltonito: That's what I'm talking about, it's an unusual package with good solid feel and quality (takin into account it's size of course). People bashing it safety on roads is just plain ignorance. What about a Peterbuilt? Those will flatten half the cars on the road.

Also, even if you don't park perpendicular, this car has a HUGE parking advantage in cities. After we bought out MINI, our parking options downtown nearly doubled from all the "leftover" spaces from bad parkers. This thing will fit into spots we pass up!

If you don't get it, then this car was not designed for you, keep moving.

crustyjoe

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @no_slushbox- I was wondering how jalopnik it is. It certainly feel like an interesting car suited for driving recklessly. But I didn't see a category for nannies. i.e. how many points you lose for not being able to turn ESP all the way off. For me, that's -50 points or worse. I'm sure its possible though, maybe just a fuse.

And besides, we all know that the real quiz would be--how jalopnik are you? How many wrecks, speeding tickets, longest drift, can you wheelie a motorcycle, have you done donuts, how many cars have you maxed out. That's what counts, not what you drive... I've been in two cars where the airbags have deployed, but never a rollover. But I did jump my old miata, have been on the nurburgring (as a passenger, I wasn't insured on the rental car. but now that I think back, the car wasn't insured anyways), and driven at Vmax on the autobahn.

Please, oh please, give us the quiz.

nick2ny

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> They aren't cheap cars, that's for sure, and they're definitely not a car for everyone.

But for the price, you get a lot of stuff that isn't even available in other cars that people might be cross-shopping it against.

You can't get heated leather seats or a panoramic glass sunroof in a Toyota Yaris.

gotsmart

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I think in the end, this car will fail because it's not a great value for the money. As somebody else pointed out already, base price of a new Civic is about $3K less than the price of a Smart. For the price of the Civic, you get a car that will transport 4 - 5 people and cargo in the trunk. A car that will cruise comfortably at 80+MPH and which gets similar mileage. (I actully managed 39 MPG once in my '03 Civic.) Without parking exceptions, the Smart is useless.

respawn

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I'm considering trading my '02 Mercedes SLK for one of these. I'm a sucker for tiny new cars. It's ironic how big guys like small cars and vice versa.

MarkB

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @crazygutgut: The thing is, the SMART feels really safe. It has that heavy, taut feel that VW perfected in the A4 platform. My Civic and the Corolla's I've driven didn't have that solid feel.

@nick2ny: Believe it or not, the SMART interior is much nicer than the A160 Elegance I drove in Europe. I think Elegance is French for "cardboard."

eltonito

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I can't think of one reason why I'd buy this thing over a Honda Fit.

rawtoast

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @badco-fascism: But by that logic, no one would drive a Lotus Elise, even an Aveo or Yaris would be scary, and you'd burst into flames by even thinking about a Seven. And the Tahoe driver still has to worry about transport trucks. I know safety is a good thing, but I'd rather that we didn't all concern ourselves so much with mass - an automotive arms race is a bad thing.

As for the price, I'm tempted to say it's actually a good thing. By being sold as a premium product, it becomes a desirable accessory to your iPod instead of just a small car you bought because it's what you could afford.

Maymar is convinced M.C. Escher engineered his car

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> It scores Fantasy Garage level on the Jalopnik ranking system:

1 (3 cylinder)
-10 (transverse engine)
5 (1 throttle body)
15 (turbo)
10 (3 door)
15 (convertible)
-20 (unibody)
25 (Rear-wheel drive)
20 (rear engine)
5 (paddle shifters)
100 (Mixed origin, Japanese Mitsubishi engine, German car)
5 (51-100 HP)
10 (2008)
-10 (2 cupholders?)
5 (ashtray?)

=176

no_slushbox

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @DWMILLER:

Caps lock is cruise control for cool...

You must be cool.

93celicaGT2

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> In my town, they actually have special spots for former Smartcar drivers, denoted with a blue wheelchair icon.

The Name's Ash78, Housewares

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> In Victoria, BC, Canada (Canada has had the diesel Smart for a number of years now, and is moving to the petrol model for 2008), their are actually smaller "Smart" parking spaces at the beginning and end of a lot of streets/blocks.

JoeKing

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @eltonito:
I think thats the point. this car wont be any easier to park here if cities dont make exceptions to them (I believe they wont, well Berkeley might) so you dont get any advantage there. for the price you can get better equipped safer feeling civic or corolla. It is an MB after all so i cant imagine that this car is cheaper to repair than any other MB.

crazygutgut

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Here's an equation:

Smart - (MB safety) - (Swatch style) - (poor exchange rate) = Tata

The Name's Ash78, Housewares

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @dolo54:

Although the HHR is no prize, and all caps are internet screaming, this Smart is very ugly as well. Further, the milage is much less than I'd expect given all the sacrifice in size of this thing, not to mention the price.

The only thing it seems to offer is rogue parking ability. Even that seems suspect for real world use in most areas. I guess I just don't "get" this car. When it truly gets great milage, or does something special, maybe I'll get it then.

rlj676-new job, same problems

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @theeastbaykid: I think we've been getting more than a few people straying over from Autoblog lately. That's just the way they roll.

Parramore64

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> "Look at it as fundamentally altering the way Americans think about transportation though, and you'll be disappointed."

That's only because the Segway has already fundmentally altered American transportation.

saabophile2

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @JanTheMan: That's not from the back seat, it's from the front seat of the chase car, it's just that close!

FЯeeMan is slowly cЯawling out of the new commenting system

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> The transmission is shocking when you first get in. It feels like when you drive a manual with your friend shifting. Except in the smart, your friend controls the clutch too.

But after 100 miles or so, you learn the patterns, and then it ceases to become an issue. It keeps the playful verve of a manual (and doesn't do the annoying torque converting thing), and you learn the shifters habits (and I imagine it learns yours too).

It is a great transmission when you're used to it. It just doesn't do well on test drives.

nick2ny

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Obviously this car is not for everybody, or even that many at all. But I know a lot of people that would like it. It's all abot choices people, now we Americans have one more option in the stable, whether you like it or not!

I also think pricier small cars will become more of the norm for people wanting quality "stylish" cars such as the MINI, smart or Fiat 500 (oh, that's right, we can't get that here).

crustyjoe

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> It's a crazy high price for what you get. I was actually considering driving one after I test drove it but you can get so much more car with just slightly less mpg. They ought to slash the price by at least 5g.

rondeimer

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> The last gen has been on sell in the US by specialty dealers in Florida, Arizona and porbably other places for years. So it pretty much has been driven on American soil.

944turb0

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Oh, and you can actually open the roof remotely with the key fob if you get boxed in :)

nick2ny

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> After a few hundred miles in it, I've figured out the ingredients.

1 interior of an A-class
1 suspension setup from a z4 M roadster
1 motor of a Cobalt
1 fun-loving spirit of the original xB

Bold it all together then pour formula 86 delayed-action mousemaker in the gas tank.

It is such a fun car to have, and the only car worth considering for Manhattan-Manhattan trips.

I too kind of doubt whether it will wind up being legal to park like that. I'm hoping there is a ruling saying it is legal on non-metered streets.

It is fantastic on the highway- Totally composed at 80mph (its natural gait) and fine when you go faster than that too. Not scary when you pass trucks. Although it does have a speed limiter in reverse (so no reverse-flicks, I suppose).

The roof is dope- you can flop it up and down whenever you want.

nick2ny

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I've always been shocked at how expensive this little sucker is. The available, more practical, options at that price point are many. A base Civic starts at around $15,000 for one example.
The car is a good idea but placing it strictly up market always seemed like a bad idea to me.

JayP71

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> A good car for car sharing fleets in big cities for sure. But until Smart puts out a model with a second row of seats it's just not gonna take off here. This model is going to be relegated to niche uses. Not that that's a bad thing. Just like with alternative fuel technologies, there is no silver bullet. We need more creativity in Detroit and more of an open mind in the U.S. car buyer.

HDC

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @crazygutgut: Let's be honest, there isn't really any parking in San Francisco that won't get you ticketed. "Parking" is just a cruel illusion there...

eltonito

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Garebear: Be careful with that hood, it is woefully inadequate for the patented "Duke Slide."

eltonito

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> That was certainly a non-review if I've ever seen one. Just how slow and herky-jerky is the transmission? The 2007 model I test drove was awful - the worst ever. Have they fixed the touchy, grabby brakes? Is it possible to drive this car smoothly?

I like the concept of smart; it's their execution that gets a big, fat "F".

goatrope

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @theeastbaykid:
no this is the land of parking ticket quotas and strapped city budgets...

crazygutgut

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @DWMILLER: Not to throw fuel on the flame, but why does it not surprise me that the Venn diagram of HHR owners and all-caps typers has plenty of intersection? But the point is well-taken.

theeastbaykid

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Yup, there were a few of those around Redmond, WA. Some rich dude from microsoft had brought them in.

franzouse

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Cut the price in half and I still wouldn't consider it for an in-town commuter, not with all the decent small used cars on the market with good mileage.

TPSreports

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @eltonito: You're right, I was just being an ass. It had a Mercedes emblem on it...

Garebear

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @crazygutgut: It's my understanding that sideways parking is legal in Europe. Try in America at your own risk. (Though, as long as you're not blocking anyone, shouldn't it be OK in the Land of the Free?)

theeastbaykid

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @dolo54: Screw the lambo doors, that's what windows are for. Didn't Bo and Luke teach you anything??

Garebear

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I'd love to see this thing with a diesel, but I'm not that upset about it's mediocre fuel economy. The size is much more important to me. Chicago is doing away with parking meters, going instead to the mid-block electronic pay box. So, without meter-defined parking spaces, you put your car where you can fit it. Neighborhoood parking will be much easier, too.

hwyengr

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @eltonito:
In San Francisco all of the "good" parking is pay parking. I cant imagine the DPT letting a car squeeze in between two meters and NOT pay.. just not gonna happen, even if its a good idea, the cars are gonna be relegated to full size spots regardless... yeah it might come in handy in permit parking areas, but I still dont see them letting these cars do this.. after all these are the same guys that ticket motorcycles for parking in between meters and for parking on the sidewalks..

crazygutgut

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> A surgeon I know has had one for a few weeks. He seems to love it. It has replaced his DB9 Volante as his daily drive!

Lost_in_the_valley

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @acx: I just snorked my coffee at that visual. A-thank you.

TroubleonWheels

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> "...in a crash it will actually activate the crumple zones on larger cars, using their in-built protection to cushion the Smart's occupants, too."

Oh, puh-leeeeaze.

beercheck

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @DWMILLER: I WILL ASSUME YOU ARE OVER 80 AND CAN ONLY SEE CAPITAL LETTERS. WHO CARES ABOUT 35MPG? YOU DRIVE ONE OF THE UGLIEST CARS EVER MADE.

I wouldn't park sideways like that in nyc. You might get boxed in, unless you go for the lambo door kit. Looks fun to drive in the city. I liked driving my little integra around here, fits in a lot of small spaces between suvs...

dolo54

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Kooooo-Loo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo...">Kooooo-Loo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo......! Kooooo-Loo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo...">Kooooo-Loo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo-Koo......!

The leetle car of Smartness has achieved great success in the North of Great Whiteness.

POLAЯMISSESEVEЯYBODY

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Potential buyers (mischievous assholes) beware (take note).

We have had more than one case of Smartie tipping in Canada since these turbo diesel mircomachines were shat out of the german war machine a number of years ago.

Seeing one on its side was enough to scare me back into my (at the time) equally gay forester 2.5XT.

acx

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Baltimore is American soil! And they've been imported there thru the gray market going on five years. You see them buzzing around from Mt. Washington to the Inner Harbor. They've filled a void in the automotive landscape there; specifically the small parking voids no other car could hope to fit in.

bmoredlj

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @DWMILLER: Yes, but since you can't turn off your caps-lock no one really cares.

eltonito

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Uberdude: True, about 1000 '04, '05, and '06 models have been imported to the USA by a company called G&K. They are 8" shorter, and don't meet all US safety laws. This is the first '08, and the first car ever sold by smart USA...

nick2ny

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Uberdude328i: @Garebear: The previous model looks pretty much identical from less than 5 feet away and there are plenty of them that were imported from Canada. You might be sighting the prior model.

Then again, you might not...

eltonito

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> 38 MPG, BIG DEAL, MY HHR GETS 35MPG ON HIWAY WITH CRUISE AND I CAN HAUL CARGO AND KIDS. THE COST ON MY HHR WAS $18900 WITH TAX AND LIC. IT IS TEN YEARS TOO LATE.

DWMILLER

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Smart cars have been sold in Canada since 2004 and i'm sure many have taken a trip across the border. Why i've even seen parking enforcement here in Toronto tooling around in them. (THAT does look gay)

General Halfshaftery

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Uberdude328i: The first paragraph does say "few," this is definitely one of the first officially-imported vehicles driven on US roads.

I've seen several in the Phoenix area, as well.

skaz

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @Triborough:
Nah, it's DUMBO.

anaxomander

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> It is funny you mention the New Beetle because the headroom is great in both cars. I'm 6'4" and not exactly skinny and found the ForTwo quite spacious in terms of the seating.

The big turnoff was that transmission. I have to believe a CVT would be better suited to this car and to the MPG than the awful automatic-manual lurchfest.

@crazygutgut: Some cities are permitting the ForTwo to guerilla-park in this manner and it becomes less relevant in pass/permit/free areas. More importantly, the ForTwo will be able to comfortably fit into a half space created by some jerk who can't park inside the lines inside a lot or garage.

eltonito

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> @badco-fascism: It's not going to be much worse than in any other commuter car, really. Nothing is going to fair well against a 5500 lbs behemoth smashing into it.

skaz

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Not true. This is not the first drive of a FourTwo on American soil. Perhaps the first road test, but there is one in the metro-Atlanta area that I see on a regular basis.

Uberdude328i

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> If only they'd kept producing the Roadster, I'd be a possible customer. And I don't buy new cars, ever.

skaz

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Sure, it's safe when striking a fixed barrier. Being hit by a 5500 lb Tahoe is another story. You can't argue with physics.

badco/LoJ

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I saw a yellow one last Friday in Bellflower, CA. So, um, nah-nah-nah-nah-naaah-naaah?

Garebear

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Trying to run afoul of both the NYC Parks Department and the NYPD in the third photo?

Triborough

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> Sorry, you "can't" go two-wide in lanes. Bad typo.

The Name's Ash78, Housewares

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> the pictures of the car parked "sideways" are hysterical, but I cant imagine that any Traffic and Parking department is gonna let that fly.. ..

crazygutgut

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> I've been following the company since its inception, thanks in part to Business School case studies and my ongoing interest in auto innovations.

But to me, THE key part of the business model has almost completely faded away. This car was envisioned with endless amounts of dealer-installed options that would allow for a limitless amount of customization. The colored body panels snap on and off, so you could change the color like a cellphone's faceplate. There was even talk of modular transmissions at one point, allowing owners to "upgrade" from manual to auto tranny later on. This was supposed to be the car that lit a fire under the asses of the traditional auto distribution model.

It can take up half a parking spot, but what cop will allow you to park two under a single meter? You can go two-wide in lanes, like motorcycles. It's all the expense and inefficiency of a small car, with even less storage space.

I don't wish failure on this car; I just think it's 8-10 years too late coming to the US.

The Name's Ash78, Housewares

]]> <![CDATA[2008 Smart Fortwo: First U.S. Drive]]> How did you take that picture from the backseat?

JantheMan

]]>