Introducing the new Chrsyler Smart Crosstown. BTW, you can let the top down as well as the windshield like Jeep's. Compact smart hybrid cars have been in Europe since 1998. US is a decade behind. Compact hybrids are great to travel in for work, light loads and seats two people. I love it. Forget the ForTwo. This is a lot cuter. It's only 15,000 Euros (Approx. $20,000 USD).
What relation does it have to Studebaker (or a Toyota for that matter crossposter)and why would I want to spend $20,000 for a car that could go in the bed of my truck, wouldn't want to take out on the Interstate, and generally doesn't do the things normally expected of a car better than a $13,000 Kia?
There is a reason those things haven't even been able to make money in Europe!
They are cool looking little things but just don't make sense in real life.
Jeff DeWitt
snipped-for-privacy@email.com wrote:
The one my dear wife and I would like is the "Carver" - sort of a triked motorcycle with a body and it tilts 45° to either side as you corner. Still around $40,000 Euros though. Maybe we'll just get our GoldWing triked and put on the electric vests for now...
Brooksie
Check this out . . . looks a lot more fun than a Carver. :) -Dave
EEEEEEEEEEOOOOWWWWW! A tad pricey but best described in one of the videos as a "go-kart on steroids"!!!
Brooksie
For commuting around town, or driving the 17 miles to work, I could see where it would be useful.
Also, you have to realize, that for 3 mile drives for cups of coffee, etc, it makes NO sense to fire up an IC engine. Talk about asking for trouble!
If this thing runs mostly on batteries/electric motor, it would be a good, um, 'vehicle' for short trips to the store, etc!
Chrysler has to be kidding. If the EV-1 had been this ugly, GM could have killed its electric car in 20 minutes, at whatever lease fee they'd asked for it. Driving one of these monstrosities would force me to wear a mask so that no one would recognize me and thus embarrass me! and at 20 grand, it's just ludicrous....maybe a new one out the door for $7,000 would make a bit of sense, but for $20,000, I'd sooner get a four year old Lexus with all the bells and whistles and hang the gas expense. I have to think that if a Chrysler salesman had an interested buyer and mentioned in conclusion that it cost "only" 20 big ones, the customer would have every right to laugh and say "yeah, right....what is it REALLY?" To my mind, the latest bunch of Chrysler products have been designed by someone who doesn't like cars much....the small windowed "armored car" look leaves me cold. The last halfway decent looking Chrysler was (IMO) the Sebring convertible, except that the back seat was suitable only for five year olds and double amputees.
Consumer Reports is near me, and they have an "in" at the local NBC affiliate. Every so often when it is a slow news day they throw in a special Consumer Reports spot. They recently did a test drive of these "city" cars. They pegged them as almost impossible to drive, scary brakes, and while they "meet" the crash test specs, you would not want to be in one, when hit with anyything bigger than a four year old on a tricycle.
That certainly wouldn't have been a Smart then. They're astonishingly tough.
Graham
They tend to be damn strong but unfortunately humans inside arent. Theres only so much force the connection between your kidneys and their blood vessels can take and when you exceed that you bleed to death internally on the spot, among other possibilities. In a
It is possible to design even a small vehicle like a Smart to minimize intrusion into the passenger compartment during a crash, but it is not so easy to design the occupants so that their organs can withstand crash forces. Minimizing passenger compartment deformation is not the only component of making a crash-worthy vehicle. The other major component to vehicle crash-worthiness is to spread the dissipation of energy over a greater distance and time so that the occupants' internal organs have a chance to stay put.
An analogy is those competitions where contestants design packages to protect eggs that are dropped from heights. If you wrap an egg in padding and place the egg in a container that is roughly double the volume of the egg and drop it from a height of 3 feet, the container may not deform or break open but the egg inside will probably crack. If the container is bigger, there is more opportunity to provide a means of absorbing the energy and preventing the egg from cracking.
Another analogy is when stopping a car with a greasy pizza that is secured on the front seat. At 60 MPH, if you apply the brakes to stop the vehicle over a distance of 100 yards, the pizza toppings will remain on the crust. If you apply the brakes at 60 MPH to stop the vehicle over a distance of 20 yards, the pizza's toppings will probably slide off the crust even though there is no damage to the box.
In a vehicle, more real estate in front of the passengers means that energy can be dissipated over a larger distance and time than with a smaller vehicle.
A small vehicle can be designed to accelerate, brake, and handle as well or better than a larger vehicle while consuming less fuel and being able to park in smaller spaces, but in crash-worthiness, bigger is better.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.