DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.

So let me state my post such that you can comprehend. One must further ask the question "Do the research reviewers have a personal agenda that may color his perspective, analysis, and findings?"

As I stated above. Yes, we do and that personal agenda is to evaluate the perspicacity of the research and the researchers therein involved.

Dave D

I guess the air bags don't mean much with the engine in your lap.

Really? I was being paid big bucks to design crumple zones, when you where probably still driving a tricycle There is not enough room in a vehicle of that size to design a crumple zone that can sufficiently reduce the terminal speed of the third collision, at which ones organs will strike their skeleton, to prevent them from being killed at the mandated 35 MPH crash test speed Before we had test dummies we used belted an unbelted cadavers. Their livers, spleens, gallbladders, and etc would explode. If they had lungs capable of holding air, or blood under pressure, I'm sure they would have ruptured as well ;)

mike hunt

Whoever paid you should ask for their money back

Here in Canada many Smarts sell to carry advertising, it gets noticed initially. As for an urban car it would sell much better if 50% of the current price. Of course it is for two people and their brief cases; not suitable for two people to grocery shop of go playing golf.

Here the much more practical and lower cost Toyota Yaris is running the Smart off the road.

Safer than a Harley, dude. Better mileage, too, sounds like.

All I know is, I had to maneuver in the parking lot yesterday around some idiot in their extra-cab Ford 150 that stuck its ass halfway across the narrow lane, got past that only to see an even bigger Ford

350 4WD, parked outside the Wild Oats store where these two citizens had gone to buy their non-fat lattes and cartons of sprouts. There just gots to be a better way.

J.

Don't blame the big vehicles, get a gun and shoot the "it's-all-about-me" drivers.

LOL, ain't it the truth. Then there's the take two spaces so it don't get scratched gang.

But the drivers of those vehicles "need" them. Just ask and they will tell you. While you can get into conversations about constitutional rights to drive whatever you want, the fact is, few really need the size vehicle they drive. I have a Regal and a LeSabre, but could really get by with a Civic or Yaris about 99% of the time. Outside of North America, you just don't see the huge trucks and yet people manage to get their jobs done and commute to work.

I do like a lot of goodies in a car. I've been re-thinking my priorities. I was about ready to spring for a Lucerne, but I may just wait and make a larger down payment of a Cobalt, Civic or Corolla instead. There is more to life than a big car.

If you like goodies like navigation, auto AC, heated seats, etc, in a small car, think about a BMW 3 series, Lexus IS 250, Acura RL or TS.

The republican congress at the beginning of the current administration passed tax legislation that made it *very* attractive to own an SUV. Here in So Calif you see little soccer moms driving huge SUV's all over town. Usually while talking on the cell phone.

To some extent, there is truth to that. To some extent, your synicism is well placed. I had an S-10 for several years. Plowed snow every winter, carried lumber, hauled the garbage, lugged around my snowmobile, carted some of the family - but not all, etc. It did just fine. It was a bit cramped and it lacked for heavy towing capability, but it really did most everything I needed. When it came time for a new truck, I went with a full size truck because it plowed better, towed better, was wayyyy more comfortable, carried more, and only got 2-3 mpg less than my S-10. I could have gotten by just fine with another S-10, but I got by with more capability with my K-1500. Gas was cheap enough to not worry about the small difference in mileage. Hell, the comfort alone was worth that sacrifice. This truck will stay around for a few more years, but when it comes time for it to retire I'll probably look at the equivelent of an S-10 again.

Unless it's a '66 Cobra, I'm having a hard time convincing myself to crawl in and out of anything smaller than my current '03 Grand Am, or my wife's '04 Sonata. Who knows, maybe in a couple more years...

I wonder, what was the difference in mileage? I have a four cyl S-10 (89) and my 97 4.6 T-Bird gets better mileage.

If I was in my twenties, I'd certainly be driving something different. MY wife would like an Eclipse, but she'd have a helluva time getting in and out of it.

My S-10 was the 2.8L 6 cylinder and it got 18mpg. My '94 K-1500 gets 15.

"Michael Pardee" wrote in news:Q8mdnUmJfeeV3zrZnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@sedona.net:

My point exactly.

The "Smart" is a political vehicle. It is manufactured for political reasons. Politics is a poor substitute for physics.

Or a dumb cost / benefit ratio.

The smarts pass all safety checks in the european ncap tests with flying colours, which includes passenger space intrusion, shock loading etc regulations, better than a lot of larger cars. The reason they cost more is because getting this kind of protection in a smaller lighter vehicle takes a lot of hard work and design time, and testing.

Personally I wouldnt drive one, they're ugly, but for a city/suburbs car they are ideal and perfectly safe, if not safer than the vast majority of yank tanks.

J