Talk:Smart Fortwo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duplicate Page[edit]

This article is duplicated at Smart (automobile) ... these pages should be merged...

Da Vinci Code[edit]

Please do not put The Da Vinci Code (film) as product placement. The smart was first in the book and the movie followed it. Reywas92 20:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why not? The car received lots of publicity by being in the film (and to a lesser extent, the book). That's no different from the other movies on the list. If anything, it should go back in. --Vossanova o< 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the Steve Martin version of The Pink Panther also, should we include that? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The appearance of the car in the movie might be surprising for US viewers, but in Europe, where the story takes place, the Smart fortwo ist an absolute usual vehicle, just like a Honda Civic in the US. The movie was made in 2006, while the smart car has been introduced in Europe in 1998. Also, the model that is shown in the Movie has been replaced by the second generation model just four months after the movie was released, so I guess it would have been a little late for product placement? --Nik222 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

The third paragraph in this section is POV. It needs to be revised to be neutral, or else removed. --Vossanova o< 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old information[edit]

"In September, 2005, Smart President Ulrich Walker announced that a decision on entry of the Smart into the US market would be made before the end of 2005." - This is old information, and should be deleted.

Done. --Vossanova o< 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I have removed links to discussion forms:

  • This is a forum.
  • The quality of the forum cannot be assessed without joining the group
  • The forum is not a unique resource to the topic and by it's name is dedicated to a sub-topic of the article at hand.
  • Is being promoted by a member or moderator of the forum in violation of WP:SPAM.


I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gas mileage[edit]

Where this is posted "The Smart averages 4.7 L/100 km (50 mpg or 21.3 km/L) for the gasoline model" should be specified which version of the gas engine is referred.

Is the gas mileage stated in the page accurate? It currently lists the Smart Fortwo as getting 50 MPG, but in the USA the EPA listed it as 37 MPG. Many people are saying that the "Americanized" Smart Fortwo defeats its purpose, because the European models get 60+ MPG whereas the USA ones only get around 40+ MPG supposedly.

Does anyone have any more information regarding the "Americanized" (or ZAP! modified) Smart Fortwo gas mileage? I don't know how true the "37 MPG" thing is from the EPA, but sadly I wouldn't be surprised if the American Smart Fortwo gets a lot less than the European model. Andrew 05:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps different qualities of gas, or more strict emissions requirements in America, requiring a certain 'exhaust to engine size' ratio, requiring more emissions-lowering items such as a catcon, which would increase backpressure, which decreases overall performance, requiring more gas to do the same work? I dunno, I'm honestly just guessing here. Ahanix1989 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Largest difference is that the European models have a turbocharged engine, which is able to generate much more power from the same physical size. Also, the 2008 models the EPA tested are verifiably larger and thus likely heavier as well. This is akin to how some heavier vehicles actually get better gas mileage with a large V8 instead of a V6. Also, many of the 'super high MPG' Smart's were quoting the Diesel model I believe. WolfWings 02:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the "50mpg" figure IS for the gas-powered one - the Diesel ones are even better (I have a personal account of 60-70mpg (imp) in-city, though this of course isn't encyclopaedic). It already comes with a catalytic converter, as have all gas-powered european cars for approximately the last 15 years (and longer for some makes - i'd be surprised if Mercedes weren't doing it for 20 years or more). The amount of power output the Smart has shouldn't be an issue (WHY do people keep coming back to this? It weighs less than 800kg. It's not a truck. 40hp is perfectly sufficient for a car of this size and weight to buzz around the city and at an electronically limited 135km/h on the highway. The larger engines are even less stressed. (Former owner of a 900kg car that had a 45hp engine which only struggled past 80mph or on steep hills - conditions not tested by EPA AFAIK - and a 70hp one that's about twice the Smart's weight with all seats filled and is idling most of the time when driven around the city). It's probably getting lower economy figures because the American engine is TOO BIG rather than some strange reasoning to do with how it's heavier than the european one and NEEDS a bigger engine to counter this. (Also, the extra weight will be a factor just because it requires more energy to get moving, and the car doesn't have any kind of hybridisation). The loss of the turbocharger will have hurt it also, but there are enough examples of small-displacement, non-turbo gas engines that are powerful enough to move even the heavier Smart at acceptable speed, and are economic (re: Citroen C1), even on the questionable moonshine that passes for fuel in many US filling stations. Still, they could have run it on Premium to get the figure had the manufacturers requested it, couldn't they? 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You know there is also a difference in the fuel economy of the Euro petrol vs American petrol models because of the difference of English and American gallons.

I couldn't find the fortwo on http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/, do you have a link?

If we agree to use L/100km instead, it may both remove the confusion AND facilitate the conversion into long (imperial, 4.55 litre) or short (US, 3.8-ish L... 4/5ths of an imperial one anyway!) MPG, whichever is local to you. It also gives a nice easy single digit figure to compare to/aim for - 3L/100km is, near as damnit, 100 MPLG.


http://www.smartusa.com/smart-car-technical-specifications.aspx This states that the American version get 33/41 mpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.202.198.27 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

33/41??? Are you kidding me? What is the point of having a micro compact if it does not get greater fuel economy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.144.5 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it'd be easier to maneouvre and park in the city... um... other than that, I don't know. I'd really, really like to know what the hell they've done to ruin it so comprehensively. If it's simply because of emissions regulations, your legistlators are basically taking away the advantage of the left hand to give it to the right, even though a car that uses less fuel surely produces less emissions overally, even if it's in a legally-significant different proportion? (Hey! I'm putting out 20% more Carbon Monoxide per mile, but its alright, because its now 0.09% of my total emissions rather than 0.11%!). And at the same time I can get a four seater like the Citroen C1 that matches or beats the original Smart's consumption figures, at least on the open road (that upright-coke-can-on-wheels shape can't be super aerodynamic once you go over ~35mph) and comes close in cityscape situations... so why not just import that instead, as it'll still be far smaller than any other US automobile, but probably already compliant as the B-Zero platform was intended as a "world car" from the off? (Also just how crazy stringent are the US/Canadian regs, given that our cars are already racing/struggling to comply with ever-iterating Euro standards, including a pretty tight Euro IV that makes a mid-90s EcoTec engine look like a coal-fired powerplant?). The given figures are likely reliable, for the euro versions, by the way. The "super high" diesel figures are actually given seperate from the petrol/gasoline ones if you look. I know someone who used to drive a grey-import (to UK where the config isn't offered) diesel Smart, and got over 70mpg UK regularly IN THE CITY. 50mpg is nothing! :D
Sort it out, America. Stop being wierd. I do now at least have a better understanding for the manufacturers churning out heinously inefficient (to european eyes) vehicles... they'd probably like to include all manner of neat tricks and technology to up the figures and gain an edge in the market, but are defeated at every turn by madcap legistlation (like Citroen themselves were with a lot of their better, cleverer, safer cars in the 70s and early 80s).
BTW, what of the american-market small cars of the 90s? The Geo Metros and all? How would they fare against current regs, I wonder... there's a guy out there with a blog claiming to get regular >100mpg figures after fitting a longer-ratio gearbox... Again, 4-seaters capable of over 90mph, but similar/better economy (certainly better than the US Smart)!

82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?[edit]

Any reason why the picture was changed? 24.5.93.146 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RR Layout[edit]

Seriously, i can't imagine why someone thinks that the smart fortwo has a MR layout. Before changing that let's discuss this here.

Because the engine is forwards of the rear wheels, but behind the front ones? That's all that's required for MR status as far as I'm aware. True RR cars like the Beetle, Fiat 500, Porsche etc tend to have the weight of the engine over or even behind the rear axle. I'd like to see you argue for this being the case on the Smart, as the rear wheels are so far back as to be nearly outboard of the main body. The Roadster, which is pretty much built on the same chassis, is DEFINITELY mid-engined... the thing's visible as a lump under the luggage shelf! There are some cars that are arguably MF / M4 (with the engine in front of the driver, but behind the front axle - not a normal arrangement!) for this reason ... as soon as I see the appropriate Top Gear episode again where such a car is tested (noted as improving otherwise potentially understeer-heavy handling... the Quattro or Evo I think?) I'll come back with an example name :)
The layout is very similar to the Mitsubishi i, that crams 4 seats into almost as small a wheelbase. Take a look at the profiles of the two cars, and the cutaway diagram at the top of the MR article itself for clues. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have one and the rear axle it's split in two, with the bottom of the engine in between. But you can keep with your magazine/TV knowledge of this car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.203.31 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it uses half shafts. In car with half shaft the axle line is imaginary and crosses the car at the center of the rear wheels. Rabbitbunny (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are being that picky, half-shafts are the shafts carried within a live axle casing on each side of the differential unit. What you are looking at on a Smart are drive shafts. And yes it is MR, the engine and gearbox sits ahead of the rear axle line, obviously you don't include the differential structure as part of the powertrain for this assessment or there would be no such thing as an MR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.244.202 (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Could people add sources for the information they've added to this page? For example, this would enable us to find out (and add to the article) whether the mpg used is US or British. Skittle 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive[edit]

As the engine is rear-mounted, I question whether this vehicle is rear wheel, front-wheel or all-wheel drive. I can't see it mentioned anywhere.

trezjr (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's rear wheel drive, what did you expect/think? 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't know just based on engine placement. Theres been front engine, rear wheel, and reverse. 69.115.70.122 (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Bates, your car is ready[edit]

This page says:

" The City Coupe had stability problems that were discovered only immediately prior to launch. These forced a package of alterations to be made that were both expensive and compromised the car’s handling, ride and gear shift."

If true, I'd like to see it confirmed & included. I'd especially like to know which moron let the car go thru design, development, & preproduction testing without discovering this. Trekphiler (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably, IIRC, similar issues suffered by the same-stable Mercedes A-class... both cars with comparitively narrow track and short wheelbases for their tall bodies and suffering handling and stability problems, particularly in violent maneouvres. In both cases it IS bizarre that models that are somewhat premium items, and would usually be expected to be sold partly on the basis of safety, would make it to market before the problem was discovered. Perhaps someone in the Mercedes technical department thought that these city / small family cars didn't need the same kind of testing for response in challenging open-road situations for some reason? Possibly this was even a standard omission from the testing of this class of vehicles (usually quite well planted due to being relatively low to the ground) and no-one had put any thought into the implications of the at-the-time unusually high bodies. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember folks, this isn't a place to discuss the car, but rather the article. 842U (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they on the road yet in the U.S.?[edit]

I saw my first one the other day, in Walnut Creek, CA. I was surprised how high (and wide) it was. It was, of course, very short. Are the cars being distributed nationwide, or only in selected areas? 76.21.8.213 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are on the road in the US, There are something like 30 dealers, www.smartUSA.com has a dealer locator. Rabbitbunny (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First gear?[edit]

Is it true that the car shifts to first gear automatically when stopping at traffic lights? 88.193.206.74 (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimParsons (talk • contribs) 02:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mild Hybrid" classification really that valid?[edit]

I was quite disappointed when checking out the Micro Hybrid on Smart's official website... it's all rubbish, it's nothing more than a plain engine start-stop system. It's as much a "Hybrid" as my own car is when I turn the engine off at a red traffic light - and less so if I turn it off at the top of a hill and coast down in neutral, which I doubt Smart's system does. Aside from the marketing men's naming of it as one, it's not a hybrid in any way, so should we really enter it in the encylopaedia as such? If we did, any car with stop-start (several of which have been made recently, and a smattering since the 1970s if not earlier) would have to count as Hybrid, and arguably any car with an electric starter...

Safety[edit]

"Though innovative and efficient (sic)". The author cites a wikipedia article (smart roadster) which does not discuss the safety of the Smart Fortwo at all (none that i could see at least). Would somebody please add a source to back those statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandor (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Smart Fortwo performs well in federal crash test ([1]) despite some safety concerns due to the driver door opened during the side test.--Mandor (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, silly me ! Smart (automobile). All right, I think this statement: "The Smart Fortwo is considered to be one of the most dangerous cars on the road today, despite the popular belief that they are "safe and reliable," which is noted on a number of popular crash test rating websites" is out of place for a car that performed well during the federal crash test. Although I find nothing concerning the "(sic) shaky handling and an unreliable break system (sic)". I will keep looking.--Mandor (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget [2].--Mandor (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the safety. There should be a controversy and criticism page for ALL vehicles that have a reputation for fuel efficiency. They may be fuel efficent, but they are smaller, cramped, can't haul anything...even groceries, annnnd most importantly, they aren't safe. They just can't be safe. How can a very small vehicle be safe?! In-Correct (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Tango. From Commuter Cars' website (commutercars.com) "The Tango's racecar-style roll cage design, its 4-point harnesses, its low center of gravity, and a weight comparable to a midsize sedan combine to make the Tango extremely safe." And, "We have designed the Tango around a roll cage that meets or exceeds both SCCA and NHRA regulations." Londonbrig0 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best if you leave safety assessment to the experts then. I was amused to note that despite being half the size of my car, it was only one point behind (28 vs 29) in the euroncap tests linked by Mandor above. And that's despite not having a side-airbag (which is an option, but is standard on mine). Also has much better pedestrian protection than mine (which does not affect us selfish drivers, but sure as hell affects our, and everybody else's, kids). This idea that a small cars 'obviously' cannot be safe does not seem to be borne out in the real world. EasyTarget (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name - fortwo instead of Fortwo[edit]

I've noticed that in all the literature from smart, the car name is not capitalized -fortwo instead of Fortwo. We should do the same here. --Trödel 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what should be done, but Wikipedia needs to be consistent. I can find "ForTwo," "Fortwo," and "fortwo" at various places in the article. One style should be used throughout, unless directly quoting from a source that uses another. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3.4 Hybrid Section - Wrong pictures???[edit]

Why are there two pictures of "Plastibell Circumcision Device" in this section??? 90.184.244.249 (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Models - Roof versions[edit]

Point 2.2 of the Article ("Models") is wrong: There have never been removable targa-style roof panels! Both generations of the Smart fortwo have either a solid black plastic roof or a panorama roof made of glass. The convertible version was introduced in Europe in 2000 an has an electric soft top with (manually) removable side roof bars. Could please someone change this part of the article? I would do it by myselt, but my English is not that perfect. --Nik222 (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smart ED[edit]

I think we should merge the article "Smart ED" to Smart Fortwo article,because I think the ED is same as the Fortwo,only some minor change have been made. BBG Wiki (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limited 1[edit]

Can anybody confirm definitely that a later special edition called the Limited 1 did actually exist as mentioned in the article? I am only familiar with the original Limited 1 launched in 1998. Seems odd that smart would use the same name again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Island Roamer (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pink photo?[edit]

The photo of the 2nd generation ForTwo shows a pink car, a color which has never been sold from the factory. It seems more intended for ridicule than as an accurate representation of a Smart ForTwo that one would find at a dealership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson23 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whole sections without citations[edit]

There are several very thinly sourced sections in the article. The Models section is completely without any sources that would support the section -- it appears to be completely original research. 842U (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Smart Fortwo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Smart Fortwo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smart CROSSBLADE[edit]

Does it deserve it's own page or should we merge into this?? -- - - - -T e r g y t h e u s e r- - - - 15:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smart_Fortwo&oldid=1202387772"