6 ms·

I've never been a fan of the Smart line of cars, if only because they are so damned expensive here in the US ($15k for the base model, 39mpg). In my mind, there

I've never been a fan of the Smart line of cars, if only because they are so damned expensive here in the US ($15k for the base model, 39mpg). In my mind, there's absolutely nothing "smart" about a gas powered two-seater with no frills that costs several thousand more than a four-seater with all the options from Nissan (Versa, $12k, 36mpg) or GM (Spark, $13k, 39mpg), especially given comparable gas mileage and more power in the latter vehicles. The only advantage the Smart ForTwo ever had in this country was easier parking. That said, this new EV in the same form factor as the Smart, at that insanely low price, is a no-brainer for city commutes and perhaps even for suburban/semi-rural. I know I could easily get a week's worth of daily driving out of it, and like you, my company would allow me to charge at work. While we would definitely take the traditional sedan on any long trips or vacations, local trips would be fun and practical in a little EV. Unfortunately, just like the Smart, it would be horribly overpriced if it ever came Stateside.

rmchugh 9y ago
As far as I understood the article the low price seems to be due to Chinese government subsidies which may not be applicable if sold to another market.
Retric 9y ago
The expensive parts of cars have little direct relation to their size. Body panels are cheap, transmissions/airbags/brakes not so much. Which is why SUV's are so profitable as their markup relates to perception not cost.
ansible 9y ago
I've never been a fan of the Smart line of cars, if only because they are so damned expensive here in the US ($15k for the base model, 39mpg). I'd toyed with the idea of buying one when they first became available. But the fuel efficiency wasn't as good as some other contemporary vehicle models. And I'd be giving up a whole back seat. And performance was certainly anemic, even by sub-compact car standards. I'll probably just get a Prius next year. 50 mpg, as actually measured by outside firms like Consumer Reports. That's so impressive. I'd love to get an electric, but they're just too expensive still.
- fhood 9y ago
  The fuel efficiency is inexcusable for a car that light and making that little power. The ford fiesta gets the same combined mileage while weighing nearly a thousand pounds more.
- morganvachon 9y ago
  You know what's really impressive? Back in the early 2000s I bought a 1991 Honda CRX HF from a friend, and it got about 48 mpg even with 150k miles on the odometer. That wasn't a hybrid car, just a hyper-efficient gasoline engine in a lightweight body, and it still had enough pep to safely merge on the highway. One would think a modern plug-in hybrid would get well over 70 mpg.
  - dmm 9y ago
    Cars from the 80s and early 90s are not really comparable to modern vehicles. Modern safety regulations add a lot of weight. A good example of this is the Mazda MX-5. The original model from 1989 weighed 940 kg (2,070 lb). In 2009 Mazda made a special lightweight MX-5 to celebrate the 20th anniversary. It was made of special materials and even removed the windshield to save weight. The resulting car weighed 130 lbs more than the 1989 model.
  - Retric 9y ago
    1991 Honda CRX HF has 40 mpg in city driving when new. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/7474.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/7474.shtml A 2017 Prius has 58 city mpg. You can beat that with an efficient driving style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving So, they really are significantly better.
    - bostonpete 9y ago
      Your point may be correct, but it does seem like you're cherry-picking the data. The difference in highway mpg is not nearly so significant: 1991 Honda Civic highway: 47 mpg 2017 Prius highway: 53 mpg
martin_a 9y ago
The interesting part about the smart for me was insurance and taxes. I don´t know where you are from, but in Germany there are some twists to that. As a young driver you have to pay premium charges to the insurance companies, like five to six times of the normal price if you are an unexperienced driver. Cars which are "unpopular" (especially with young people) are also cheaper... Due to the small engine, taxes are also very low for smarts. All in all this made up for the rather high gas use...
geezerjay 9y ago
> I've never been a fan of the Smart line of cars, if only because they are so damned expensive here in the US ($15k for the base model, 39mpg). I was surprised that their mileage was so low. Some sources point at values close to 60mpg but somehow US-based estimates nearly halve those values. It's very weird, or even unbelievable, how a 2-seat 730kg car with a 0.6l engine is shown has having worse mileage than a 5-seat 1100kg car with a 1.5l engine. Things don't add up.

rmchugh 9y ago

As far as I understood the article the low price seems to be due to Chinese government subsidies which may not be applicable if sold to another market.

Retric 9y ago

The expensive parts of cars have little direct relation to their size. Body panels are cheap, transmissions/airbags/brakes not so much. Which is why SUV's are so profitable as their markup relates to perception not cost.

ansible 9y ago

I've never been a fan of the Smart line of cars, if only because they are so damned expensive here in the US ($15k for the base model, 39mpg). I'd toyed with the idea of buying one when they first became available. But the fuel efficiency wasn't as good as some other contemporary vehicle models. And I'd be giving up a whole back seat. And performance was certainly anemic, even by sub-compact car standards. I'll probably just get a Prius next year. 50 mpg, as actually measured by outside firms like Consumer Reports. That's so impressive. I'd love to get an electric, but they're just too expensive still.

fhood 9y ago
The fuel efficiency is inexcusable for a car that light and making that little power. The ford fiesta gets the same combined mileage while weighing nearly a thousand pounds more.
morganvachon 9y ago
You know what's really impressive? Back in the early 2000s I bought a 1991 Honda CRX HF from a friend, and it got about 48 mpg even with 150k miles on the odometer. That wasn't a hybrid car, just a hyper-efficient gasoline engine in a lightweight body, and it still had enough pep to safely merge on the highway. One would think a modern plug-in hybrid would get well over 70 mpg.
- dmm 9y ago
  Cars from the 80s and early 90s are not really comparable to modern vehicles. Modern safety regulations add a lot of weight. A good example of this is the Mazda MX-5. The original model from 1989 weighed 940 kg (2,070 lb). In 2009 Mazda made a special lightweight MX-5 to celebrate the 20th anniversary. It was made of special materials and even removed the windshield to save weight. The resulting car weighed 130 lbs more than the 1989 model.
- Retric 9y ago
  1991 Honda CRX HF has 40 mpg in city driving when new. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/7474.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/7474.shtml A 2017 Prius has 58 city mpg. You can beat that with an efficient driving style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving So, they really are significantly better.
  - bostonpete 9y ago
    Your point may be correct, but it does seem like you're cherry-picking the data. The difference in highway mpg is not nearly so significant: 1991 Honda Civic highway: 47 mpg 2017 Prius highway: 53 mpg

martin_a 9y ago

The interesting part about the smart for me was insurance and taxes. I don´t know where you are from, but in Germany there are some twists to that. As a young driver you have to pay premium charges to the insurance companies, like five to six times of the normal price if you are an unexperienced driver. Cars which are "unpopular" (especially with young people) are also cheaper... Due to the small engine, taxes are also very low for smarts. All in all this made up for the rather high gas use...

geezerjay 9y ago

> I've never been a fan of the Smart line of cars, if only because they are so damned expensive here in the US ($15k for the base model, 39mpg). I was surprised that their mileage was so low. Some sources point at values close to 60mpg but somehow US-based estimates nearly halve those values. It's very weird, or even unbelievable, how a 2-seat 730kg car with a 0.6l engine is shown has having worse mileage than a 5-seat 1100kg car with a 1.5l engine. Things don't add up.