Rendered Speculation: Smart ForTwo +2 gets less tiny
The Smart franchise hasn't exactly been a blockbuster financial success for Daimler. Although the diminutive city runabouts certainly have their adherents, the entire brand is widely believed to have never turned a profit. Having but a single model to sell, the Fortwo, probably isn't helping matters, but according to AutoExpress, a second model is on the way. Tentatively dubbed "Fortwo +2," the rumored four-door will look to outperform the slow-selling ForFour, a model that only lasted for two years. The new model is expected to essentially be a stretched version of the rear-drive Fortwo, with a pair of rear-hinged demi-doors to allow access to the second row.
Despite its mechanical similarities to the current car, AutoExpress says that the ForTwo +2 probably won't reach showrooms before 2011 "at the earliest," although it's reasonable to expect both gas and diesel versions, along with a full-electric.
While AE offers no speculation as to what markets the vehicle will be available in, the U.S. would seem to be a shoe-in, as although the automaker's newly minted American arm is performing very well, the Fortwo's trademark tiny size is still seen as a purchase barrier by many buyers.
Can we have a new Smart Roadster now?
[AutoExpress]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Aprime 1:33PM (3/09/2009)
So why aren't they calling it ForFour? Is it too hard to pronounce for the former colonies?
Reply
Patrick 1:40PM (3/09/2009)
Hmmm well I could see some references to Snoop Dogg songs...."I hopped out wit a Fo-Fo". Or something to that effect. And idk, to me the Smart brand doesn't have the cache to pull off "ForFour Magnum". Hah.
Aprime 1:42PM (3/09/2009)
Autoexpress never get their renders right anyway - their version of the Mazda 3 looked like a shrunked (although fine looking) CX-7. They just hear about a possibly-upcoming product then try to come up with something based on the automaker's present day styling cues (in this case it's getting an awful lot of Merc DNA).
James 2:43PM (3/09/2009)
Because the "forfour" already existed! It sold extremely poorly, so I'm sure smart doesn't really want to evoke the negative sentiments of that particular vehicle.
Also, this vehicle appears to be much more heavily based on the fortwo car than the previous forfour, so this naming scheme makes sense.
jhfoever 3:12PM (3/09/2009)
How about ForTwoSquared?
bill jackman 1:35PM (3/09/2009)
"No, sit in the back. I promise you'll be OK when we get rear-ended by a Suburban." No thanks. Someone tell me why people buy these over a Civic? The mileage is almost the same. Is it the gawk (geek?) factor?
Reply
Aprime 1:39PM (3/09/2009)
Eh?
The safety cell would prevent that much crumpling.
...And that's the problem, you wouldn't die or be hurt because of the SUV, but because of the lack of energy dissipation, that's the problem with these things that nobody seems to understand. It works using the same principle as the cars from the 70s and before, only better designed (and that's arguable to a certain extent too because not all cars from the past were tanks, just look at how Beetles crashed).
Taglane 1:40PM (3/09/2009)
You can get a Versa with twice the Cargo room, 3 more seats, and almost equal fuel economy for about 2K less than a Smart "Passion" thingie.
Mobius_1 3:23PM (3/09/2009)
But to some people:
Smart = you have money to buy a nice town car
Versa = you don't have money to buy a nice family car
Blake Luttrell 3:49PM (3/09/2009)
The Smart is designed for the CITY. It's an efficient, safe, easy to maneuver car that isn't put together cheaply. If you live in the suburbs the Smart makes a lot less sense, but in the city it's absolutely wonderful.
tcc3 9:59AM (3/10/2009)
The problem is its too much and doesnt get good enough gas mileage for its size. It could be one or the other, but not both.
Its little more than half the size of a Bug and only gets slightly better mileage. It actually gets worse mileage than the old CRX.
Sean 1:37PM (3/09/2009)
Going back to the drawing board seems like a good idea to me. There are cheaper, safer and more reliable vehicles that get better gas mileage.
Reply
Farris 1:38PM (3/09/2009)
Um.... ForFour?
Reply
dukeisduke 1:41PM (3/09/2009)
I thought they had already sold a "ForFour" in the past, but had dropped it due to poor sales.
Reply
dukeisduke 1:46PM (3/09/2009)
Yep, they made a ForFour, from 2004 to 2006 (and a roadster was once available, too):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(automobile)#Production_Models
So why do they want to revisit this?
ChopperDave 1:44PM (3/09/2009)
New smart Roadster FTW!!
Reply
jc 2:01PM (3/09/2009)
I don't see Smart catching on once Toyota ,Honda ,Hyundai ect. start introducing less expensive ,better engineered micros.
Smart's a flash in the pan because Germany's Daimler cannot build an inexpensive Mcro with their labor costs.
Reply
Frank 8:23AM (3/10/2009)
Daimler couldn't even build an inexpensive (but good) Dodge after they bought Chrysler. They just don't seem to know how to do it. Imagine if they had listened to Chrysler engineers (instead of dictating to them). They could have easily shaved 10% off the cost of production of their E and C classes while charging the same price and keeping the same quality or even improving it.
Frank 8:24AM (3/10/2009)
Daimler couldn't even build an inexpensive (but good) Dodge after they bought Chrysler. They just don't seem to know how to do it. Imagine if they had listened to Chrysler engineers (instead of dictating to them). They could have easily shaved 10% off the cost of production of their E and C classes while charging the same price and keeping the same quality or even improving it.
Kaveh 2:30PM (3/09/2009)
Would be a interesting car, but wouldn;t have any truck space for four people. That fourfour was just a re skinned Mitsubishi Colt. I wish they brought the Smart Roadster here, that looked like a cool car.
Reply