Filed under: Government/Legal, Safety, Hatchbacks, SMART
NHTSA cites safety concern after crash testing smart fortwo
Click above to view video of the 2008 smart fortwo crash test
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently conducted crash tests for the 2008 smart fortwo. Anyone who has laid on the tiny two-seater will probably tell you that safety is a major concern considering that the average vehicle size in the U.S. is much larger than in the fortwo's native European market, and the thought of being in one that's sideswiped by a Suburban is not pleasant. Daimler was confident that the fortwo would perform well in federal crash tests, and it actually did earning four stars in the front crash test for both the driver and passenger and five stars in the side crash test, the highest number the federal agency gives. During the side test, however, the driver door opened, which the NHTSA cites as a safety concern. If the door of a vehicle opens during a crash, the chance that a passenger could be flung from the car is obviously higher. After watching the videos of both crash tests (check 'em out after the jump), we're actually impressed with how well the fortwo handles blunt impact trauma thanks to its safety cell. Being as small and lightweight as it is, however, the car surrenders to inertia and quickly heads the opposite way when struck. Thanks for the tip, Noel!
Gallery: smart fortwo
[Source: NHTSA]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Mr. Oak 3:05PM (4/03/2008)
Oops!! What happened? So many here swore about the crash worthiness of the "Smarts". Some even daid thet they are safer than a F-150.
Reply
rar 3:21PM (4/03/2008)
For as small as the car is i thought it did good in the crash test. My question is why would you by this car when for the same money you could by a Fit or a Yaris. For as small as the car is you would think it would cost less than $10,000 and get 55 to 65+ mpg. I don't get it.
Gregg 3:33PM (4/03/2008)
No, rar, I don't get why you compare apples and oranges...and then don't get why some people buy one or the other.
geo.stewart 3:55PM (4/03/2008)
ok Greggg,
What different market is the smart in than the Fit or Yaris? Why would you buy the smart and discount looking at the Yaris>? that removable roof? you really dont want ANY cargo capacity and you only have one friend? you cant park worth a flip so you want to be able to park any way you want? you really want to be able to say you saved 25 gallons of gas this year over that idiot in a Yaris?
RP 4:17PM (4/03/2008)
You can park the Smart creatively (perpendicular to the curb), which might be a plus in SF or NYC.
So maybe that's worth the extra $. Don't parking spots in NYC go for $20k/year?
Gregg 4:21PM (4/03/2008)
Cool yer jets, geo.stewart. Yes, there are many good reasons to buy a Yaris for example. But not too many people are going to cross-shop the two. If the smart doesn't appeal for its unique attributes, then hands down, the Yaris wins. Mostly two different audiences.
havoc 4:36PM (4/03/2008)
the smart would be a great car for SF streets (only seen a few here). i a world where parking is almost non-existent (or in the hundreds of dollars), the smart offers the chance to park on many of the curbs between driveways that are too small for even 'compact'cars. the style of traffic and the routes (esp with lane splitting and cyclists) means the smart is even more appropriate, and hopefully less damaging to pedestrians (who rarely look before walking out into the crosswalk).
In such a congested city, with such badly planned roadways and worse regulations, the smart makes great sense.
now if only it were a plug-in
wait, why is it better than a golf cart?
peanutbutter 5:42PM (4/03/2008)
I actually have looked a smart over very well and it is way above the yaris in fit and finish.( and it has a coolness factor the Yaris can't seem to find) Those safety numbers blow the Chevy Aveo away (deathtrap) Now it it tiny by why do cars have to be big? Do I want to buy one? I may have but the dealer didn't have any available and they told me the wait was 1 year average. So I didn't buy one but it was just for commuting anyway- I guess I will use my kawasaki this summer for commuting.
Xcountryflyer 5:47PM (4/03/2008)
Once upon a time, people used to drive small cars that used to weight less than 2300lbs This car weights 1700 or so. Now that we drive small cars that weight 3000lbs this seems light. Of course, its not going to do as well against a Suburban but it is pretty darn good. If people wear their safety belt they are much less likely to get thrown from the car. This is a perfect car for urban environments where parking spaces are a premium and hard to find.
Jorge 12:34AM (4/06/2008)
Buying a car is a very personal thing. IT is a self representation of who you are thats why people buy the mustang or a SUV those have a link to power or masculinity and Toyota Prius is link to green and good to environment. You either like the car or hate the car.
Some people like the yaris but some people know how good on gas the car but will still not like the car.
Same goes for the smart fortwo.
Brad2CV 3:08PM (4/03/2008)
I want to see the Smart do the same test that a 2CV and Mondeo were subjected to...passing behind a jetliner throttled up..I think the 2CV fared better than the Mondeo in that the roof structure was still intact. That being said, I never want to be struck from the side in my 2CV! Ouch! Hmm, what about a 2CV/Smart collision? haha
Reply
vintage 3:09PM (4/03/2008)
I don't care how strong the structure is, the problem is the quick change of direction that slams your brain into the insides of your skull, and screws up your neck. THAT is the problem. They can build it as strong as they want, but ultimately it's still just like 'jumping up' in an elevator right before it smashes into the ground.
Reply
Todd 3:09PM (4/03/2008)
So NHSTA has discovered ( and claim exclusive knowledge? ) of physics? Wow. My third grade science book states that an object of 2x mass colliding with another object of 1x mass will cause the lighter object to change its path.
I will gladly take my chances in the Smart, and I suspect when gas hits $5.00+ a gallon those "heavier" cars will be parked on the side of the road, abandon by their owners.
But hey, crash results and the language used to described them are up for bid, right? Exxon, I am looking over at your lobbyists...
Reply
Jason G. 3:43PM (4/03/2008)
Vintage, you Sir are clueless when it comes to auto accidents. Not to say the sudden deceleration or extreme G forces a person experiences in an auto accident are not at times the cause of injury or death due to brain damage or even in some cases internal organs tearing from the forces. However is nearly all cases life threatening injuries or death are a result of the physical external damage to a occupant caused by flying debris, a lack of wearing a safety belt resulting in a partial or full ejection from the vehicle or severe intrusion into the cockpit of the vehicle ( a door being pushed/bent inward several inches or even a foot or more into an occupant ). A vehicle’s crashworthiness is of extreme importance when it comes to survival / injury rates. You are more then welcome to drive whatever car you wish, however I will continue to enjoy my 5 star rated Lexus with piece of mind.
Peter 4:07PM (4/03/2008)
Uhm, that is exactly what is measured in these tests, and where the Smart did exceptionally well.
This blog entry is about a crash test where the car got a 5 star rating on side impact and 4 stars frontal. And the accompanying headline is "safety concern"? Is this supposed to be deliberately misleading or plain stupid?
Stephen Lang 4:15PM (4/03/2008)
Wait, you mean that doesn't work?
vintage 12:02PM (4/04/2008)
Jason, ... please don't be stupid. You say you'll enjoy your lexus, which is safe, because it doesn't weigh nothing like the smart. That was my argument. If you are in a car that weighs nothing, no matter how strong it is, it is NOT going to be safe. Why? Lack of crumple zones, and no inertia. If a big heavy vehicle hits you, you are going to change directions INSTANTLY, which will result in neck trauma or brain damage. A heavier, bigger car would absorb more energy, which would slow the transition in speeds, which lessens the probability of something like that happening.
MTU 5.0 3:40PM (4/03/2008)
Car & Driver tested the Smart Fortwo in their latest issue and their overall mileage was 32MPG. 0-60 was 14.4 seconds and the Qtr. mile buzzed by in 19.9 seconds! No thanks!!
Other than some urban drivers, I don't see this thing making much sense for most Americans even if gas costs go up to your $5 mark. I would much rather drive a compact car which will not only feel huge compared to the Smart Fortwo, but have mileage numbers that while not quite as good as the Smart are at least in the ballpark. And a compact will cost only a few grand more as well.
mike 5:04PM (4/03/2008)
Acceleration Times Again...
Car and Driver, are a bunch of guys who'd rather be driving a Corvette, then Any Other Car. Naturally, They are going to Bitch about 0-60 in 14.4.
A Zero to 60 test is where you put your foot too the FLOOR and KEEP it There.
Here's my problem. Most of youse guys don't EVER run your cars this way. Most of youse guys are AFRAID to press the pedal down more then 25% because after that the Engine start to Make NOISE. If you FLOOR IT it starts to SCREAM. Once that happens you take your foot off the pedal A.S.A.P.
So, Stop giving me this SH*T about 0-60 in 14.4.
PJ 5:22PM (4/03/2008)
I think an earlier commenter hit it on the head. Dollars and sense won't be the motivating factors for Smart purchases; those who buy one will do so because the concept behind it "speaks to them." Penny-conscious commuters will get a Yaris, Fit, or xD.
As such, I don't get the antagonism towards this car. It'll mostly get driven around urban centers as a novelty item or political statement. You're not going to be sharing the Interstate with them.
Oh, and if you think these'll ball up in a crash, look up crash-test vids for anything built more than fifteen years ago.