Top Down Auto Blog

I've seen this car on a Top Gear episode where they used it to play soccer against VW's. Based on that, these cars look sturdy. These cars are "cute", but I'd be afraid to drive these in a SUV driven culture.

Posted By: flipxcyd | February 25 2009 at 08:58 AM

It's daft. Thing is, the original Mini Cooper (produced into the late 90's) was smaller than the Smart and sat ~5.

Posted By: sfgatorade | February 25 2009 at 08:59 AM

sfgatorade -- While I love the original Mini (and early Hondas), you'd never be allowed to sell anything like it in the USA or Europe today. The safety requirements today force a much bigger car than that.

Posted By: eyebite | February 25 2009 at 09:35 AM

I would never put a child in that car.

Posted By: omnipotent1 | February 25 2009 at 11:13 AM

smart spells their name with a lower case s to emphasize the smallness of their cars.

Posted By: jonesey85 | February 25 2009 at 11:29 AM

I would buy that over ceramic brakes for my Porsche any day.

Posted By: sfwonder1 | February 25 2009 at 11:34 AM

eyebite, the original style mini was sold by Rover as recent as 2000 (and got ~50 mpg) before BMW bought the brand, and yes it was a safe car, had airbags, etc.

The main reason cars have so much more weight and mass these days is because of the industries doppelganger, oil. The more inefficient they can make the vehicle, the more gas they can sell. Disagree? Good luck with that.

Posted By: sfgatorade | February 25 2009 at 12:54 PM

i'll put in another vote for the original mini - i had one a few years back and it was rusty, noisy, leaky and brilliant! you could live more in a day of driving one of those things than 100k miles in acurainfinitylexus coffin by any measure! besides, how are you gonna feel if you manage to live to 135 anyways? you gotta die of something!!

Posted By: superburntguy | February 25 2009 at 01:44 PM

The 2008 smart fortwo coupe received the highest ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) for front and side crashworthiness.

I would put my child in that car. At least it won't roll like an Explorer.

Posted By: sseche | February 25 2009 at 01:58 PM

Actually, sfgatorade, Britain's DoT found that the old Mini was the worst small vehicle in terms of accident safety from 2000-2004. The new Mini is was actually the safest.
.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221552/228196/228215/carsmakeandmodeltheriskofdri1801

Posted By: lazynis | February 25 2009 at 02:20 PM

uhh, can you do a story on the Toyota dealership in Oakland closing yesterday. That is NEWS.

Posted By: parkchesterppp | February 25 2009 at 02:46 PM

It's easy to jump to conclusions about vehicle safety. Larger vehicles are not necessarily safer. Here's what the head of the NHTSA has to say:

In the real world, rollover crashes are relatively rare. But when they do happen, they are more likely to be deadly and they are much more likely to happen in an SUV.

Dr. Jeffery Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, according to the Wall Street Journal. "Well, sorry, but you know gut instinct is great for a lot of stuff, but it's not very good for buying a safe automobile."

In a speech Tuesday, Runge cited statistics that, while rollover accidents accounted for just 3 percent of all U.S. auto accidents in 2001, they caused nearly a third of all vehicle-occupant fatalities.

Let's face it, in single vehicle accidents, SUVs are *much* more dangerous to the occupants. In multi-vehicle accidents they are much more likely to kill the occupants of the other vehicle.

I don't think any readers really want to endorse the idea "It's ok if I kill the people I hit, as long as I'm safe," but that is what you are doing if you buy into the bigger is safer myth.

The answer cannot simply be to build ever larger, more tank-like vehicles. It will simply become a war of "mine is bigger." In an era of green sentiments, that is not acceptable. We need to educate drivers about safe driving and not getting a false sense of security from driving an SUV.

Posted By: sew2sfgate | February 25 2009 at 03:06 PM

The smart car gets 60 MPG outside of the U.S. but they killed it to 40 MPG. There's also no diesel version of it available. Thank you bankrupt big three.

Posted By: friscoelement | February 25 2009 at 06:38 PM

Hey I saw this car get reviewed on Top Gear! Richard Hammond and James May took a fleet of them and (with the help of other drivers) held a soccer match. I was astonished at just how much abuse the little Aygo could take! That doesn't mean I'm willing to dismiss the authors warning about full-size anything (drunk driver or not) at speed vs. the Aygo, but given the engineers goal of producing an inexpensive (to manufacture and repair), economic, and simple little city car - it looks like they've hit pretty close to the mark. That roundish plasticy looking front end hints that pedestrians and bicyclists would bounce right off of the thing unscathed. It seems like a good fit for the single-ish city dweller with a garage, a schedule as hectic as MUNI, and no self respect. But will San Francisco's hills eat the little Aygo and spit out the spare parts? Will it become the Aynogo-up-California St.?

Posted By: STS_Endeavour | February 25 2009 at 07:03 PM

The Not-So-smart car... You'd be better off taking the $$ and buying 2 Vespas and a side car. 70mpg and can go <b><i>faster!</i></b>

Posted By: BigDBone | February 25 2009 at 08:53 PM

Ride a motorcycle around the hulking SUV's and tell me how safe you feel. On a motorcycle, you're the crumple zone. Micro cars are the future, but this is the present, and gas is still relatively cheap. I think all manufacturers should be required to offer these type of cars, that way they are at least there for the public to see and realize they are being made, and they are affordable.

Posted By: orgazmo | February 25 2009 at 09:15 PM

Something happened in the 80s, and auto manufacturers dropped the ball. I drive an '88 Honday CRX Si. Except for the fact that it's a two-passenger car, it makes no compromises. The 0-60 is 8.7 secs, I get 40 MPG on the freeway, and I have personally driven it at 100 mph, hour after hour, between SF and Oregon. It performed beautifully. The engine has torque like there's no tomorrow, and I just wish it had a 6th over-overdrive gear.

Add two passengers, slow it down a little bit, and you have any of the other Hondas of the mid to late 80s.

Now, had auto manufacturers not started building SUVs in the 90s and instead focused on minor but constant incremental improvements, there's no reason we couldn't have today normal cars that achieved 60 MPG (2% improvement per year over 20 years would do it). Instead, we have these little clown cars with long lists of compromises.

Posted By: bobafett59 | February 26 2009 at 08:04 AM

americans have been so brainwashed about car safety - we act like europe doesnt have larger vehicles. sure they might not have as many gas guzzling suv's but there still are very large tractor trailers on narrower roads at higher speeds and most cars seemingly do just fine. there is always going to be a safer, larger, faster (etc) vehicle out there ... are you really helping your child by destroying his/her planet while driving an suv? who cares if our kids live to be 60 if they die from lack of clean air or water... encourage our hopes, not are fears...lets do the right thing for all children

Posted By: ymbthc | February 26 2009 at 08:25 AM

For those who think small cars cannot be safe you might want to look at the crash report on the smaller Toyota iQ http://www.euroncap.com/results/citroen/c3_picasso/2009/344.aspx
I couldn't find info on the Aygo but since it is a consortium car made in the Czech republic I doubt it is as safe.

Posted By: marinjim | February 26 2009 at 10:04 AM