• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Smart Car to US...Finally!

ScriptOhio;1494316; said:
The Smorsche
smart-car-porsche.jpg


The Smamborghini
4-lambo.jpg


The Smorvette
image003.jpg


The Smerrari
smart-smerrari.jpg

They look like Micro-Machines! Fucking awesome. :lol:
 
Upvote 0
smart-crash-action.jpg

Those who have followed the development of Daimler AG's tiny and trendy microcar, the smart (lower case intentional), have surely wondered about this vehicle's safety. Now they need wonder no more. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently crash tested the 2008 smart fortwo and found it performed so well it earned the Institute's best ratings for front and side crash protection. Plus, its rear crash worthiness was rated as "acceptable," the Institute's second-highest rating.
 
Upvote 0
ScriptOhio;1906559; said:

That is (or rather was) actually a Ford Escape.

By the look of the nose of the rear truck I'm guessing it was moving a good bit faster than 10mph as well.

Also the IIHS tests can be misleading as well. Their rankings are really based more on how much damage is done to the vehicle (ie how much they...they being the insurance companies that created the IIHS...will have to pay for repairs) than about the condition of the passengers.
 
Upvote 0
A small car will always be at a disadvantage to a bigger vehicle in an accident. That being said, the Smart has been as thoroughly safety engineered as is possible by a company(Daimler Benz) with an outstanding history of car safety. Smarts are city cars. In that environment they make sense.
I think they're cute, but like an elephant, I wouldn't want to own one! :tongue2:
 
Upvote 0
Muck;1906624; said:
That is (or rather was) actually a Ford Escape.

By the look of the nose of the rear truck I'm guessing it was moving a good bit faster than 10mph as well.

Also the IIHS tests can be misleading as well. Their rankings are really based more on how much damage is done to the vehicle (ie how much they...they being the insurance companies that created the IIHS...will have to pay for repairs) than about the condition of the passengers.

That is very incorrect. The rear pole impact is the only one based on value damage alone (simulates low speed backing into a pole). The rest is damage to the occupants. They are the only one that does half car impact with deformable barrier (acts like a car), and at a higher speed than the government. They also take into account things like leg fractures, not just fatalities (this has led to many companies redesigning their pedals and improving protection of a persons lower body). Their tests are actually better than the governments IMO.

edit: The negative to the IIHS test is they only test one vehicle per test since they have to buy them and test them (government crash tests are done by the manufacturers, and requires a bunch of cars). They also will reduce stars through their subjective evaluations. If they don't like the way it looks, but the occupants did not receive any injuries, they will still deduct a star. So it's not entirely scientific, but the tests themselves are pretty good.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
One of our new employees, or interns, has one of these silly vehicles. I've spotted it in the parking lot on multiple occasions recently, complete with California plates (of course :lol: ), but I haven't identified the owner yet.
 
Upvote 0
Jake;1906918; said:
One of our new employees, or interns, has one of these silly vehicles. I've spotted it in the parking lot on multiple occasions recently, complete with California plates (of course :lol: ), but I haven't identified the owner yet.

We used to have them and other European vehicles in our test fleet (this was a while ago, well before any of those micro cars were sold in the US). I drove around a Mercedes A Class for a while. It's bigger than a Smart car, but I did have someone come up to me and say "hey, where is the rest of your car?"
 
Upvote 0
Muck;1906624; said:
That is (or rather was) actually a Ford Escape.

By the look of the nose of the rear truck I'm guessing it was moving a good bit faster than 10mph as well.

Also the IIHS tests can be misleading as well. Their rankings are really based more on how much damage is done to the vehicle (ie how much they...they being the insurance companies that created the IIHS...will have to pay for repairs) than about the condition of the passengers.

MililaniBuckeye;1906784; said:
As Muck posted above, that was not a Smart car.

Not sure why the ambulances are there...they just need a broom, dust pan, and a mop.

Apparently you guys are correct. I was surprised to see how many sites reported it as a Smart Car. Snopes even says there was a second car crushed too. Maybe they needed the ambulance.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/smallcar.asp
 
Upvote 0
The only advantages I could see would be driving the car "Grape Ape Style", sitting on the roof and pushing with your feet.

Also, I guess you could buy a backpack, "park" your car in it, and carry it around with you.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1906926; said:
Saw one of these on the road yesterday. I guess they'll be available in Chrysler dealerships later this year.

fiat_500.jpg
Ugh! Ever own a Fiat? Mine was so prone to engine fires a fire extinguisher became a must have in the car! (the wife wanted one, I wanted a Saab Sonnet)
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top