Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I paid $12K for a fairly basic 2009 "orphan". Before purchasing, I spent 5 or 6 hours studying the safety information on the SMART car. Based on all the research (pro and con), I concluded that the SMART was at least as safe as a typical car. I think some of the unique safety features built in make it safer IMO.
Since buying the car, I FEEL much safer than in my old car.
What data do you have? Is there new information out that shows SMART cars are not safe?
To each their own. I never said they were unsafe. I'm sure they were designed to score well on the tests that are run in a lab environment.
I said I would feel unsafe driving one on the highway. I definitely stick by that regardless of how many stars it got in a lab test.
My 2 cents, take a look at a Pontiac Vibe. It is a great car; we have two of them. I know, people may say it is a dead car, but that is the benefit. It is a twin to the Toyota Matrix and it has a 1.8L Corolla or 2.4L Camry drivetrain for dependability, but with a $2-3K cheaper price than a comparable Matrix, due to the name plate.
I got a 2010 GT, almost top of the line, with 36K miles last year for $12.4K. It still has the balance of 5 yr 100K powertrain warranty. I know of people on the genvibe.com website with 150K, 200K, 300K and a couple with 400K miles with no major problems if they are well taken care of. Only real issue is the manual transmissions on the earlier models do have bearing problems. Otherwise, a great all around 4 door hatchback car very similar to the Mazda 3, but a bit less sporty, less expensive, and probably cheaper on insurance. A good 2006-2008 with low miles can be had for less than $10K easily.
I paid $12K for a fairly basic 2009 "orphan". Before purchasing, I spent 5 or 6 hours studying the safety information on the SMART car. Based on all the research (pro and con), I concluded that the SMART was at least as safe as a typical car. I think some of the unique safety features built in make it safer IMO.
Since buying the car, I FEEL much safer than in my old car.
What data do you have? Is there new information out that shows SMART cars are not safe?
The data has been posted on here before, but really comes down to common sense and an understanding of how crash testing is done. Here is the most often cited study and it was done to compare what happens when a small or "mini" car impacts a typical midsize sedan:
Laws of physics prevail: The Honda Fit, Smart Fortwo, and Toyota Yaris are good performers in the Institute's frontal offset barrier test, but all three are poor performers in the frontal collisions with midsize cars. These results reflect the laws of the physical universe, specifically principles related to force and distance.
Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants.
Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle.
The reason that all cars can get good ratings is based on how the crash tests are done. When they perform the tests the cars are usually striking fixed barriers, this means that only the test cars weight and velocity are involved in the crash. When they do side impact testing, the object striking the test car is weighted to match the test car itself. Essentially crash test numbers are representative of what happens when a smart crashes into a smart or a F150 crashes into a F150. They do not represent what happens when a F150 hits a smart.
The study posted above was based on what happens in a typical frontal offset crash when a midsize sedan hits a small car. In this case, it was a Mercedes C-class versus a smart. As one would expect, the smaller car is at a severe disadvantage. Even if the car manages to stay intact and not have the passenger cabin compromised, the collective forces involved are much greater on the occupant of the smaller car. When the crash happens, the larger vehicle pushes the smaller one backwards. What you end up with is the classic "whiplash" effect, but greatly magnified. First, the person in the smaller car experiences the rapid deceleration from the initial impact, but then they get an opposite direction rapid acceleration from the rebound of the smaller car "bouncing" off the larger one, followed by another rapid deceleration as the car stops.
In this exact case, the smart was pretty much destroyed...
Quote:
Mercedes C class versus Smart Fortwo: After striking the front of the C class, the Smart went airborne and turned around 450 degrees. This contributed to excessive movement of the dummy during rebound — a dramatic indication of the Smart's poor performance but not the only one. There was extensive intrusion into the space around the dummy from head to feet. The instrument panel moved up and toward the dummy. The steering wheel was displaced upward. Multiple measures of injury likelihood, including those on the dummy's head, were poor, as were measures on both legs.... In contrast, the C class held up well, with little to no intrusion into the occupant compartment. Nearly all measures of injury likelihood were in the good range.
Basically, the smart driver would either be DOA or getting airlifted to a trauma center. The Mercedes driver would have walked out of their car and most likely been the one to dial 911.
To be fair, all small cars in the test did poor relative to the midsize sedans, however, the smart was easily the poorest of the poor performers.
The study posted above was based on what happens in a typical frontal offset crash when a midsize sedan hits a small car. In this case, it was a Mercedes C-class versus a smart. As one would expect, the smaller car is at a severe disadvantage. Even if the car manages to stay intact and not have the passenger cabin compromised, the collective forces involved are much greater on the occupant of the smaller car. When the crash happens, the larger vehicle pushes the smaller one backwards. What you end up with is the classic "whiplash" effect, but greatly magnified. First, the person in the smaller car experiences the rapid deceleration from the initial impact, but then they get an opposite direction rapid acceleration from the rebound of the smaller car "bouncing" off the larger one, followed by another rapid deceleration as the car stops.
Good description here. The Smart Car in particular suffers poorly from this "bouncing" effect poorly because it has no front end to collapse. The car is designed so the steel frame absorbs all that force and the car is sent flying. They rely on airbags to keep the driver and passenger from dying from the whiplash.
I didn't see "pick up chicks" anywhere in the OP's listed criteria. I did, however, see "fuel economy" and "modernity" among the criteria, and the Wrangler is pretty much the antithesis of both.
I had no problem getting the attention of chicks when I was college-aged, and most of them never even asked if I had a car, much less saw it. Anyone who needs a car to pick up chicks had better work on their dating and/or social skills.
That was not always the case, girls were quite shallow, especially when you had a sports car or a motorcycle..... The other thing is this kid is not a car person like a lot of us were. I got my first car when I was 14 and my buddy drove cause he was 16 . This OP is obviously not into cars or the question would not have been asked in the first place.
My recommend choice would be VW diesel, anything. Best millage out there and they will run forever. Finding onecwill be tough, but the day you buy it and the day you sell it....value will be the same, if for no other reason the drivetrain . I am looking for one now to put into a suzuski Samuri
Trail rider with big rubber and lift kit. You can get into one of these for 2500,00 to 5,000,00 simple and fun to work on. 30 plus gas mileage too. Starting out, simple is better, even if you are into cars like a lot of us were in the olden days. Cars never really change, all rubber, glass and steel, no matter what year.
Good description here. The Smart Car in particular suffers poorly from this "bouncing" effect poorly because it has no front end to collapse. The car is designed so the steel frame absorbs all that force and the car is sent flying. They rely on airbags to keep the driver and passenger from dying from the whiplash.
They do not have a frame. No car does anymore. Got to get a p/u for that. Some kids go that rout, pick up trucks are always cool, and be come very popular when that chit chick needs help moving 3 or 4 times a year , as do most young people, apartment to apartment, always with several room mates...get the picture .? Worked for me, even had an old couch in the p/u bed for going to drive in movies in.....do they still have those ?
That was not always the case, girls were quite shallow, especially when you had a sports car or a motorcycle..... The other thing is this kid is not a car person like a lot of us were. I got my first car when I was 14 and my buddy drove cause he was 16 . This OP is obviously not into cars or the question would not have been asked in the first place.
My recommend choice would be VW diesel, anything. Best millage out there and they will run forever. Finding onecwill be tough, but the day you buy it and the day you sell it....value will be the same, if for no other reason the drivetrain . I am looking for one now to put into a suzuski Samuri
Trail rider with big rubber and lift kit. You can get into one of these for 2500,00 to 5,000,00 simple and fun to work on. 30 plus gas mileage too. Starting out, simple is better, even if you are into cars like a lot of us were in the olden days. Cars never really change, all rubber, glass and steel, no matter what year.
Girls are still shallow, what're you talking about! Many a time, I've been next to a car full of high school girls at a stoplight sitting on my crotch rocket and they're drooling like they're in heat, it's disgusting. Even ignoring the fact that they're jail bait to me, there's no way I'm letting one on the backseat.
My 2 cents, take a look at a Pontiac Vibe. It is a great car; we have two of them. I know, people may say it is a dead car, but that is the benefit. It is a twin to the Toyota Matrix and it has a 1.8L Corolla or 2.4L Camry drivetrain for dependability, but with a $2-3K cheaper price than a comparable Matrix, due to the name plate.
I got a 2010 GT, almost top of the line, with 36K miles last year for $12.4K. It still has the balance of 5 yr 100K powertrain warranty. I know of people on the genvibe.com website with 150K, 200K, 300K and a couple with 400K miles with no major problems if they are well taken care of. Only real issue is the manual transmissions on the earlier models do have bearing problems. Otherwise, a great all around 4 door hatchback car very similar to the Mazda 3, but a bit less sporty, less expensive, and probably cheaper on insurance. A good 2006-2008 with low miles can be had for less than $10K easily.
Good luck on your search.
Good luck finding a Vibe. the people who own them are keeping them. THe ones we did find were way expensive or had a load of miles (like 150,000 plus).
Another possibility is a Ford Ranger. They are usually cheap, they are convenient (except for carrying lots of passengers) and they seem to run forever.
By the way stay away from the Dodge Grand Caravan or Chrysler town & Country. We fell into that trap because they are really cheap for what seems to be a van in really good condition. They are reeally neat and have some awesome features, but you need to figure in 700 - 1500 % of the purchase price for repairs.
The data has been posted on here before, but really comes down to common sense and an understanding of how crash testing is done. Here is the most often cited study and it was done to compare what happens when a small or "mini" car impacts a typical midsize sedan:
The reason that all cars can get good ratings is based on how the crash tests are done. When they perform the tests the cars are usually striking fixed barriers, this means that only the test cars weight and velocity are involved in the crash. When they do side impact testing, the object striking the test car is weighted to match the test car itself. Essentially crash test numbers are representative of what happens when a smart crashes into a smart or a F150 crashes into a F150. They do not represent what happens when a F150 hits a smart.
The study posted above was based on what happens in a typical frontal offset crash when a midsize sedan hits a small car. In this case, it was a Mercedes C-class versus a smart. As one would expect, the smaller car is at a severe disadvantage. Even if the car manages to stay intact and not have the passenger cabin compromised, the collective forces involved are much greater on the occupant of the smaller car. When the crash happens, the larger vehicle pushes the smaller one backwards. What you end up with is the classic "whiplash" effect, but greatly magnified. First, the person in the smaller car experiences the rapid deceleration from the initial impact, but then they get an opposite direction rapid acceleration from the rebound of the smaller car "bouncing" off the larger one, followed by another rapid deceleration as the car stops.
In this exact case, the smart was pretty much destroyed...
Basically, the smart driver would either be DOA or getting airlifted to a trauma center. The Mercedes driver would have walked out of their car and most likely been the one to dial 911.
To be fair, all small cars in the test did poor relative to the midsize sedans, however, the smart was easily the poorest of the poor performers.
There's a thread somewhere around here about "is a smart car really smart", and the topic of safety came up. There are the die hards who swear a Smart is among the safest cars on the market, and then there's those of us who remember even basic physics and know that if that go-kart gets hit by any decent sized SUV, you're toast. People bring up the fact that bouncing is a good thing...why would I want to be tossed around in my car after an accident?! I'd much rather have something there to absorb the impact instead of being thrown around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
