The worst new car ever.

From the title of this thread, some people might expect I was talking about a Yugo or something.

And until this morning, I might have agreed that a Yugo was the worst new car ever sold.

Today I drove a Smart. Oh sure, I'd heard and read awful things about it, but I had to see for myself.

There are actually some decent things about a Smart. The chassis feels fairly competent for it's size. The interior is reasonably roomy for 2. It gets great gas mileage. It's available for a killer lease deal right now.

And then there's the transmission. The sales guy swore to me that it was shifting like they all do. If I drove any other car and the autobox shifted like that, I'd drive it straight to the transmission shop. It surges. It lags. It jars the driver back and forth in his seat with each shift.

I have a hard time believing that any driver would be willing to drive a car that behaved this way. Actually, those were the precise words I said to the salesman!

Honestly, if the car had a lovely stickshift transmission with a proper clutch, I quite likely would have traded in my Scion then and there, and driven the beejesus out of a Smart for $99/mo for 3 years.

But instead, it winds up as the King of the Worst Car Ever Sold list.

Doesn't the transmission learn the driving habits over time and become smoother?

Just wait till Jthw8 sees this.

Didn't jthw mention something about having to lift slightly when you shift?

I tried it. I tried manual shifting of the manumatic. I tried light foot. I tried heavy foot. Regardless, it shifted like a THM350 that had the Dexron replaced with sand and cooked macaroni.

^^^Magazine-worthy

EvanR wrote: I tried it. I tried manual shifting of the manumatic. I tried light foot. I tried heavy foot. Regardless, it shifted like a THM350 that had the Dexron replaced with sand and cooked macaroni.

This is gold!

Fit_Is_Slo (ceasarromero) wrote:

EvanR wrote: I tried it. I tried manual shifting of the manumatic. I tried light foot. I tried heavy foot. Regardless, it shifted like a THM350 that had the Dexron replaced with sand and cooked macaroni.

This is gold!

Round-tine, it's gold Jerry!!!

I just cant do the Smart Car thing, even if it shifted like a hot knife thru butter.

so 40mpg is "great" gas mileage now?

my 97 Cavalier damn near did that (39.8 on the last two tanks before i sold it..), and it had a usable rear seat and a trunk that would hold stuff.

My 92 Corolla did better than that, and it had a proper manual transmission.

...Now I want another one, 42mpg is nice to have.

novaderrik wrote: so 40mpg is "great" gas mileage now? my 97 Cavalier damn near did that (39.8 on the last two tanks before i sold it..), and it had a usable rear seat and a trunk that would hold stuff.

Well, 40mpg was also great in 1997; I won't deny that. But to get those kind of mpg in a Cavalier... well, you'd have to drive a Cavalier!

EvanR wrote: Well, 40mpg was also great in 1997; I won't deny that. But to get those kind of mpg in a Cavalier... well, you'd have to drive a Cavalier!

Wasn't there a guy who did the whole "I'M CANCELLING MY SUBSCRIPTION" thing because I said every time I see a smartcar I want to flip it/T-bone it? I still do.

All that said, I opened this thread expecting to see "Versa." God what a miserable hunk of E36 M3.

EvanR wrote:

novaderrik wrote: so 40mpg is "great" gas mileage now? my 97 Cavalier damn near did that (39.8 on the last two tanks before i sold it..), and it had a usable rear seat and a trunk that would hold stuff.

Well, 40mpg was also great in 1997; I won't deny that. But to get those kind of mpg in a Cavalier... well, you'd have to drive a Cavalier!

As opposed to being seen in a Smart.

Well I loves me some Yugo and some Smart car so I probably shouldn't be in here. The smart is the better car. The transmission is odd BUT, a) once it is broken in and "learns" your style and b) once you learn to drive it, it's not bad at all. And that "learn to drive it" comment isnt a jab, its a different type of trans and it takes a new learning curve. Its a manual, not an auto, but the computer is shifting for you. You let up on the gas at the shift point the same as you would when shifting a manual and things start to smooth out.

All things considered its not the best trans in the world but its far from the worst car either. I spent 3 years and 100,000 miles with one and it was a great little commuter appliance. My daughter drives it now as her first car.

The electric one is a lot more fun – none of the lag n' lurch shifting.

poopshovel wrote: Wasn't there a guy who did the whole "I'M CANCELLING MY SUBSCRIPTION" thing because I said every time I see a smartcar I want to flip it/T-bone it? I still do. All that said, I opened this thread expecting to see "Versa." God what a miserable hunk of E36 M3.

Yea i feel ya there, after driving my fit a versa feels like vanilla Novocaine

Anti-stance wrote:

EvanR wrote: Well, 40mpg was also great in 1997; I won't deny that. But to get those kind of mpg in a Cavalier... well, you'd have to drive a Cavalier!

My 89 had a v6 and got 20 lol

Lesley wrote: The electric one is a lot more fun – none of the lag n' lurch shifting.

Is it really nicer, there are TONS of the electric ones around town. The local dealer must have had 80+ on the lot last week for delivery to the rental company. .

Grizz wrote:

EvanR wrote:

novaderrik wrote: so 40mpg is "great" gas mileage now? my 97 Cavalier damn near did that (39.8 on the last two tanks before i sold it..), and it had a usable rear seat and a trunk that would hold stuff.

Well, 40mpg was also great in 1997; I won't deny that. But to get those kind of mpg in a Cavalier... well, you'd have to drive a Cavalier!

As opposed to being seen in a Smart.

if i could find another Cavvy like the one i had i'd jump on it in a heartbeat.. the 2.2 pushrod motor is dead reliable and quick enough for a car like that when paired with a 5 speed manual, and the car itself wasn't really that bad.. and if there ever was a problem with anything under the hood parts are cheap and everything is easy to get at and fix with only basic hand tools.. can the Smart make that claim?

If only we got these....with a manual.

Yeah, NO ONE likes CVT's. The Chrysler version (actually the same JATCO that everyone else uses) takes a lot of getting used to. IMHO that's not the Smart's biggest drawback, though. The Smart is just (to my way of thinking) way too overpriced for the utility available. When I can buy a Fit that gets nearly the same mileage but will carry 4 adults, well, being on the bleeding edge of hipsterdom just isn't important. Not to mention the Smart, like anything Mercedes makes, is not the most reliable thing on the planet. (sorry JThw8! )

Test drove one when I ended up with the Fit. Yes, the trans is a little weird, but it only took me a couple of miles to get a good feeling for when it wanted to shift,and let of the gas a bit. Drove very smoothly when doing that.

Curmudgeon wrote: Yeah, NO ONE likes CVT's. The Chrysler version (actually the same JATCO that everyone else uses) takes a lot of getting used to. IMHO that's not the Smart's biggest drawback, though. The Smart is just (to my way of thinking) way too overpriced for the utility available. When I can buy a Fit that gets nearly the same mileage but will carry 4 adults, well, being on the bleeding edge of hipsterdom just isn't important. Not to mention the Smart, like anything Mercedes makes, is not the most reliable thing on the planet. (sorry JThw8! )

Chrysler version ?

The electric smart will run you over $28k. Specs are very similar to the four-seater Mitsu i-MiEV which costs around $20k...

Curmudgeon wrote: Yeah, NO ONE likes CVT's. The Chrysler version (actually the same JATCO that everyone else uses) takes a lot of getting used to. IMHO that's not the Smart's biggest drawback, though. The Smart is just (to my way of thinking) way too overpriced for the utility available. When I can buy a Fit that gets nearly the same mileage but will carry 4 adults, well, being on the bleeding edge of hipsterdom just isn't important. Not to mention the Smart, like anything Mercedes makes, is not the most reliable thing on the planet. (sorry JThw8! )

No apologies needed but a few corrections are in order. Its not a CVT, its a 5 speed manual, but the computer operates the clutch pedal for you and shifts (unless you use the flappy paddles) that's why people are so confused by it, you have to drive it like a manual, if you keep your foot in the gas while its shifting like you would with an auto you will get the lurch and jerk. Try driving your manual without letting up on the throttle and you'll get the same experience.

At the time I bought mine the Fit wasnt on the market and the Smart was by far the most fuel efficient vehicle available. That has changed and they haven't, its a definite problem for them. But the utility argument is no better than people who have to have an SUV for the utility. 95% of my driving is done with 1 person in the car, 2 seats is all I need (and why does noone complain about the utility of a miata?) As for cargo space I've hauled a 42 inch flat screen, a set of 15" wheels and tires, a chevy small block, 600lbs of floor tile, etc.

As for reliability, all I can say is 100,000 miles with nothing but a set of brake pads and tires is plenty reliable for me.