Micro cars fair poorly against mid size sedans? - Page 2

E61Silver · #11 04-14-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegasX5

smart cars are stupid. I have never understood their role in the US. Economically, they hardly make sense.

Think about it this way - a smart car gets about 34 miles per gallon mixed driving (I've actually heard its FAR less because of the high load on the engine keeping up with traffic) and costs about $18,000 or so. About a year ago, they were selling around here for roughly $25k FYI.

The basic Toyota Camry invoices MSRP is ~$18,500 with an invoice in the mid $17k range and gets about 27 miles per gallon (many report higher as well). It's bigger, nicer, safer, holds more people, holds more stuff, better looking, more reliable, better warranty, has better resale value, more practical, etc etc. If you can pick up a Camry for roughly the same, if not even less $ than a smart, what advantage does the smart have besides the possibility to occassionally get a couple more miles per gallon (under the right conditions of course!)?

I have friends that want to buy their kids cars like the Chevy Aveo or the tiniest Kias and other cars similar to it in size and price. I always discourage them because at 16-21 yrs old, they're the most likely group to be in an accident. My little sister is turning 16 in two months and my mom wants to get her a car in the $5-$8k range. Guess what my suggestion is? A Land Cruiser!! (1993-1995 era) Screw global warming, screw crappy gas mileage - if my sister is any accident, I want to know she has the best possible chance to walk away from it.

Just get a used Ford Taurus/500 they are very safe and based on a Volvo.

Sponsored Links

ravenheart · #12 04-14-2009, 06:06 PM

I dont particularly like micro cars but in fairness this test (40 mph frontal) is the least likely crash type, so people considering one of these car should take this with a grain of salt. Basicly you have to go at highway speeds, cross the median (dont know if the wheels are big enough to do that?

) and then not hit the brakes until the last momment for this to occur RL.

Yes, if you intend to swirve into oncoming traffic you'd be better off in a Range Rover than a small car. But in most other situations these cars will be no worse than most other cars of comparable price.

So if you use your city car as a city car (what a novel idea) you should be perfectly safe.

vegasX5 · #13 04-14-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravenheart

I dont particularly like micro cars but in fairness this test (40 mph frontal) is the least likely crash type, so people considering one of these car should take this with a grain of salt. Basicly you have to go at highway speeds, cross the median (dont know if the wheels are big enough to do that?

) and then not hit the brakes until the last momment for this to occur RL.

Yes, if you intend to swirve into oncoming traffic you'd be better off in a Range Rover than a small car. But in most other situations these cars will be no worse than most other cars of comparable price.

So if you use your city car as a city car (what a novel idea) you should be perfectly safe.

huh?? What are you talking about?

By far the most common accident I see in the city is around a 40 mph offset/head on collision. A car is heading down a 4-6 lane wide road with a 45 mph speed limit typical of most major cities. The light turns yellow and a car speeds up to about 55-60 mph to beat the light. At the same time, someone in the opposite direction tries to hurry and turn left to beat the same yellow (where there isn't a red left turn arrow). Two cars smash into each other one going north of 50 mph and one going anywhere from 15-30+ mph. I see an accident like that almost every single day.

I don't disagree that something like a Fit or Prius has its place in certain cities - ie all over Europe in super congested cities where you cannot reasonably go faster than 30mph and parking space is super premium. Maybe even someplace like San Francisco or similar cities in the US. But I think for the vast majority of the US, these cars are simply not as safe as alternatives when you're going up against Suburbans, F350s, semis, and X5's too!

Wagner · #14 04-14-2009, 06:30 PM

As far as impact goes, I'd much rather my family be in a Ford Expedition than a Smart Car...it is just life, but lets worry about hydro-carbons

ravenheart · #15 04-14-2009, 06:43 PM

Not saying that it cannot happen - but the fact is that it is a very uncommon crash type compared to being rear-ended for instance.

It can also happen that a X5 gets hit by a falling piano that kills everyone on board because the panoramic roof was open - does not mean that I drive around with it closed all the time because I am afraid it will happen - though I will admit that would be even less likely to happen

Quicksilver · #16 04-14-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

As far as impact goes, I'd much rather my family be in a Ford Expedition than a Smart Car...it is just life, but lets worry about hydro-carbons

There you go being logical again.......

Agreeing with you really hurts... J/K..

blondboinsd · #17 04-14-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

As far as impact goes, I'd much rather my family be in a Ford Expedition than a Smart Car...it is just life, but lets worry about hydro-carbons

I can't imagine driving one of those terrible cars

JCL · #18 04-14-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravenheart

So if you use your city car as a city car (what a novel idea) you should be perfectly safe.

Agree completely. I wouldn't drive a Smart on a US highway, but if we move into the city in the next year, and end up living 5 km from my office, I would buy one. Actually, I would be more likely to buy the Toyota iQ, which isn't much larger, but that is just because I like Toyotas. The alternative would be a fully restored Isetta.

It isn't about economics, as they aren't particularly cheap. It isn't about emissions, as many larger cars will do nearly as well. It is about having a personal transportation device that is the equivalent of a motorized umbrella, easy to park anywhere. I just don't think that cars should be rated on $/lb like steak, or overall length, like (insert favourite example here). They should be fit for purpose. If that purpose is to keep the rain off you for 5 km on the days when it isn't sunny, great.