Gas mileage may be great, but you compromise a lot. BTW the back> won't hold much more than two grocery bags - hardly enough for the> family.

It is supposed to be good on snow, but how about IN snow,> like 4-8 inches of it? It also appears unstable if you corner it too> fast.

There are plenty of better small cars out there and at much better> prices. Check out Chevrolet Aveo, Pontiac Pursuit, Saturn Ion Ford> Focus etc.

trader4@optonline.n­et wrote:>

http://www.euroncap­.com/content/safety_­ratings/details.php?­id1=1&id2=69>

cf. http://www.euroncap­.com/content/safety_­ratings/details.php?­id1=2&id2=37> http://www.euroncap­.com/content/safety_­ratings/details.php?­id1=3&id2=89> http://www.euroncap­.com/content/safety_­ratings/details.php?­id1=4&id2=130

AFAIK these tests are done against solid stationary objects. In real> life there's a big risk of smashing into other cars.>

When smashing into other cars the relative weight becomes very> important. In a head on collision the smaller car will absorb most of> the crash energy.>

Unfortunately the Smart will usually be the lighter car in a crash.> Pitting a 1650 kg E-class against a 750 kg Smart I think I'd put all my> money on the E-class.>

Ximinez> --> Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...> and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....> http://www.ai.mit.e­du/people/paulfitz/s­panish/t1.html

AFAIK these tests are done against solid stationary objects. In real> life there's a big risk of smashing into other cars.>

When smashing into other cars the relative weight becomes very> important. In a head on collision the smaller car will absorb most of> the crash energy.>

Unfortunately the Smart will usually be the lighter car in a crash.> Pitting a 1650 kg E-class against a 750 kg Smart I think I'd put all my> money on the E-class.>

Ximinez> --> Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...> and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....> http://www.ai.mit.e­du/people/paulfitz/s­panish/t1.html

Safety ratings are only relevant to vehicles of the same weight> category. For instance, a vehicle that weighs 3200 lbs is compared> with a vehicle in that class and then rated. I am not sure what other> vehicle would be in the same category as the Smart car, but> comparatively it may come out on top. Reality is that there are Ford> F150, Escalades and Silverados out there. How can ANYONE say that> these vehicles are safe. I am sure any kind of side impact will> result in death.

The Smart car has a rear engine which minimizes any substantial crumple> zone in a front-end collision. In effect, the driver and passengers> are the crumple zone and if hit hard, you will not likely survive.>

Gas mileage may be great, but you compromise a lot. BTW the back won't> hold much more than two grocery bags - hardly enough for the family.> It is supposed to be good on snow, but how about IN snow, like 4-8> inches of it? It also appears unstable if you corner it too fast.>

There are plenty of better small cars out there and at much better> prices. Check out Chevrolet Aveo, Pontiac Pursuit, Saturn Ion Ford> Focus etc.

AFAIK these tests are done against solid stationary objects. In real life there's a big risk of smashing into other cars.>

When smashing into other cars the relative weight becomes very important. In a head on collision the smaller car will absorb most > of the crash energy.>

Unfortunately the Smart will usually be the lighter car in a crash. Pitting a 1650 kg E-class against a 750 kg Smart I think I'd > put all my money on the E-class.>

Ximinez> -- > Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...> and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....> http://www.ai.mit.e­du/people/paulfitz/s­panish/t1.html

Heh, 4-stroke as opposed to 2-stroke?

Let's put it this way, the Smart was designed for a different ecosystem. Ever try piloting even a C-class down one of Europe's > many small old-city roads?

So you'd never ride a motorcycle?

What's that got to do anything? If you're implying the Smart has 2 stroke engine it's got a diesel.>

Yeh, I've driven C-class in Europe, at over 150mph. And what's up with the "Europe's many small old-city roads"? Where and how's > that an issue? Have you ever even been to Europe?

What's that got to do anything? If you're implying the Smart has 2> stroke engine it's got a diesel.>

Yeh, I've driven C-class in Europe, at over 150mph. And what's up> with the "Europe's many small old-city roads"? Where and how's that> an issue? Have you ever even been to Europe?>

I have my license and I used to own one a long time ago. I still rent one occasionally when on holiday.>

I do think that motorbikes are a lot riskier than cars. A small mistake could end up hurting you a lot more than it would driving > a car. A colleague of mine drove into the back of a car recently and was hurt moderately. I think he would've walked away easily > if he had been in a car.>

I wouldn't want to do my daily commute on a bike.>

Ximinez> -- > Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...> and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....> http://www.ai.mit.e­du/people/paulfitz/s­panish/t1.html

There are some old-cities where this can become an issue. In small villages on hilltops in the S of France things can get really > tight. In most cities and villages this is not an issue at all, although it can be advantages to have a Smart if you have limited > parking space (which *is* an issue in many places). You might just be able to squeeze one more car in it...

No, just forgot the smiley. The OP was asking why you didn't like bikes,> and many *do* come in 2-stroke.

Yes. And IMO, a Smart looks and feels "right" downtown in a city like Rome, but I probably won't drive it regularly out on the > Autobahn.

Here, in Singapore, they brought in some Smarts for a trial, but the tax structure and the premium pricing meant that it was a > failure. The Asian "status" mentality might have had something to do with it too.

The per-capita population of Mercs in Singapore is one of the highest in the world, IIRC, and because of urban renewal, there is > no problem with roadspace, you just have to pay more for it.>

In the US, with them SUVs, I'll stick with my bigger car, thanks.

If I had to move my family using a Smart car I would need roughly three> of them. No fuel savings there...

Yeh, that's what I was thinking you were implying. Actually, I> wouldn't mind a bike, there's a lot of beautiful riding to be done in> BC. I definitely would not commute, people here are blind to bikes.>

Nobody buys a Smart car to move their family. The second seat is> for the brief case or person going out to lunch with you >

IMHO two good seats serve me better than two tiny seats and one rear> seat where nobody can sit because I have put back my seat as far as> possible.

For those who have more to move, smart makes the four door four seat> smart forfour.>

IMHO two good seats serve me better than two tiny seats and one rear> seat where nobody can sit because I have put back my seat as far as> possible.

Hey, you're in BC! Nice. The weather really doesn't lend itself to bikes when it's wet, though.

Which leads me that think that "tight" is relative. I remember way back, driving up from the US to visit my sister in Vancouver in > an old Gran Torino. After the US, the roads suddenly felt very narrow. I'm not sure that was just the perception on my part, but I > promptly borrowed her hyundai to explore places like Chinatown, and felt much more at ease after that.

THE point for the Smart fortwo is it's shortness:> 2500 mm, the very best on the whole car market in> terms of parking space (leaving _light_ cars such> as the French Ligiers etc. pp. out here).>

Of course anything else is not as good as with other> modern vehicles of the same price class:> No rear doors, no rear seats, short wheelbase,> narrow wheel track, lack of crumple zones etc. -> but given its shortness it competes well (IMHO).

Of course anything else is not as good as with other> modern vehicles of the same price class:> No rear doors, no rear seats, short wheelbase,> narrow wheel track, lack of crumple zones etc. -> but given its shortness it competes well (IMHO).

Personally I wonder why Smart sells so few> forfours - not many to be seen on the> streets here in Germany (compared to other> cars in that price segment).>

Personally I wonder why Smart sells so few> forfours - not many to be seen on the> streets here in Germany (compared to other> cars in that price segment).

P.S.: Beer? What's beer? I only drink tea... ­

I don't. The Smart forfour is based on the Mitsubishi Colt platform> and it is a very usual microcar, which you can buy from many> different brands.

In Canada we only have the fortwo, quite a bit of them too. Personally, > if I had the choice between a forfour and a Toyota Echo/Yaris/Rits > hatchback I'd take the Toyota, bigger and cheaper.

Of course, if I had followed the given link earlier I would have known the > origin of your moniker/signature & quote therein.>

However, last night we started watching one of two "Best of Monty Python" > tapes the wife picked up cheaply the other day and there it was, the Spanish > Inquisition sketch. Although I had seen many of the episodes first time > round and many of them later, I did not remember this one...>

Anyway, Trouble at th' mill (or trouble at mill as in script) is hard to > reproduce in writing...