Northern California - Smart ForTwo vs. Honda Fit Test drive report

Choices Choices choices!! Both cars are fabulous! :thumb: Regardless of what reviewers say, the Smart ForTwo is very driveable, even at freeway speeds (280 San Jose). The Fit, however, drives more like a normal car (i.e. Civic, Corolla, etc), whilst the ForTwo is a bit of an oddball, introducing concepts that Americans may not be immediately comfortable with.

Size comparison:
http://www.mooworld.org/images/smartcar/smartcar_06.JPG

http://www.mooworld.org/images/smartcar/smartcar_09.JPG

Lisa fell in love with the Smart car immediately. She thought it was easy to drive, despite the 'manumatic' tranny. It's also amazingly roomy inside. Safety systems were a priority for the 2nd gen Smart.

http://www.mooworld.org/images/smartcar/smartcar_01.JPG

One surprising thing about the Smart: it uses premium gas. I guess that's because it's a high compression engine with dual camshafts. It will take regular, but it's optimized for 95 octane (91 is minimum, according to the sticker). The Fit uses regular octane gas, but gas mileage is dismal, 24/30. The ForTwo gets 33/40.

The Smart's tranny is a bit different, but Lisa had no issues. It's an electronic clutch system, where there is no torque converter to actuate gear shifting. The ECU calculates shift points and throttle positions. To make it shift in auto mode, you have to NOT floor the accelerator, and as it shifts into a higher gear, it feels more like a stickshift (a bit jerky) rather than an automatic (smoother). It has a 'sport shift' mode with paddles, but I thought that was a bit of a gimmick.

http://www.mooworld.org/images/smartcar/smartcar_02.JPG

Interior:

http://www.mooworld.org/images/smartcar/smartcar_03.JPG

Rear bumper diffuser:

http://www.mooworld.org/images/smartcar/smartcar_04.JPG

Rear Engine bay:

http://www.mooworld.org/images/smartcar/smartcar_07.JPG

Front hood area stores all the fluids, and heat exchangers for the A/C and radiator system.

http://www.mooworld.org/images/smartcar/smartcar_08.JPG

Test driving:

http://www.mooworld.org/images/smartcar/smartcar_05.JPG

One cool thing about the color is that you can order different color panels, so you can mix and match. Almost all body panels are plastic, so they can be snapped off and replaced. The only structural piece is the roll cage that is exposed as the black stripe on the above picture.

Nice ride, err, drive report! Sounds like it's a Smart then?

She looks so cute in the Smart car! :) Sounds like it is a good match. :thumb:

David/Lisa:

Did you know that you could fit a bike in the Smart car?


This one ....

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e157/sesamecrunch/Merc1.jpg

I agree, it looks like the Smart is a good fit. (No pun intended.) (Okay, it was.) I was under the impression that the Smart had an infinitely variable transmission thing going on, however.

The Fit is supposed to be a tiny car, but it really doesn't look it to me. Neither does the Nissan Versa. The Toyota Yaris looks small, but the other two look a lot bigger. I've never seen them side by side, though, so it could be optical illusion.

One surprising thing about the Smart: it uses premium gas. I guess that's because it's a high compression engine with dual camshafts. It will take regular, but it's optimized for 95 octane (91 is minimum, according to the sticker). The Fit uses regular octane gas, but gas mileage is dismal, 24/30. The ForTwo gets 33/40.

Don't know where you're getting these Fit gas mileage estimates from. Spec is:

Manual: 28/34
Auto: 27/34

There is a lot of confusion about the octane requirements of the Smart. You may be looking at Euro-based RON octane with the 95 number. There are two methods of measuring octane - research and motor and they can be as much as 10 points difference. US pump octane is based on the average of RON and MON and is typically about five points lower. So 95 RON and 91 pump are about the same.

- Mark

Nice, sounds like she really likes the Smart car - that's why you do the test drives!

JB

Yeah, it sounds like 95RON is about 90/91MON so you might want to try mid-grade (seeing as how we're all running out 98RON (93-94MON) 'premium fuel' cars on crappy CA 91MON anyway...

I also thought the tranny was a CVT but I have also read about it being sorta jerky, which doesn't make sense if its a CVT.

Don't know where you're getting these Fit gas mileage estimates from. Spec is:

Manual: 28/34
Auto: 27/34
I got it off a window sticker at the dealership. I was surprised at the low numbers as well. In any case, the average mpg for the Fit is still considerably lower than what we're looking for: ~35 average.

Nice ride, err, drive report! Sounds like it's a Smart then?

Thanks! The reservation just went thru. Thanks for all the info everyone. We really needed to test drive those two to get the right idea of what she wanted. :thumb:

I got it off a window sticker at the dealership. I was surprised at the low numbers as well. In any case, the average mpg for the Fit is still considerably lower than what we're looking for: ~35 average.


Bear in mind that the mileage figures may also depend on the year of the car. Mileage estimates have always been optimistic, but the EPA started using a new system for all 2008 models that is a bit more realistic, but still likely a wee bit optimistic.

Also, your mileage could be very dependent on your driving style. A heavy foot will drop things quite a bit as I'm assure you are aware of.

Have you checked out the reviews on the two cars? Perhaps Consumer reports?

Nice to have too neat options to chose from. Good luck.


****Actually the 'Smart Cars' site mentions the change in mileage figures
from 2007 to 2008................

http://www.smartusa.com/smart-car-technical-specifications.aspx


****

Fuel consumption* City/highway (mpg) 40/45 (EPA 2007); 33/41 (EPA 2008)Anything above 35 mpg average will suffice. The gallons per 100 miles figure seems to flatten out after about 35 mpg.

See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142118.htm

We have an '07 Fit, and enjoy it very much. I believe the 27/34 mpg figures. And, the back seats flip up in a way that its easy to slip a bike in the back with only the front wheel removed.

We have an '07 Fit, and enjoy it very much. I believe the 27/34 mpg figures. And, the back seats flip up in a way that its easy to slip a bike in the back with only the front wheel removed.

Thanks for the info.

I'm actually shopping for a small car and am considering the smart, fit, yaris & focus.

Does anyone know if you can fit a standard road bike in the smart with just removing the front wheel?

Does anyone have comments on the yaris or focus?

Thanks.

The Fit appears to be twice the car, for the same price, and with similar mpg. And, over the past decade, Honda's have had the industry's best record for reliability and low repair costs.

OT: Does anyone know if they're going to bring the Toyota AYGO to the US?

I'm buying the new '09 Fit once the are released. :D

Gotta get rid of my WRX first though.... :cry:

OT: Does anyone know if they're going to bring the Toyota AYGO to the US?I kind of like the Yaris, so the thought of something even smaller is fun. While my first thought was "There's no way they'd ever sell that here," that was also what I thought when I first saw the Smart.

Now...

In 2008, Toyota created a driveable one-off concept car based on the Toyota Aygo. Named the Aygo Crazy, it will be unveiled to the public at the British International Motor Show in London, before appearing at other UK-based motor shows during the summer.[4]

Aygo Crazy has a rear mounted 1.8 litre VVTi engine from the Toyota MR2 and Celica, mated to an MR2 five speed gearbox and fitted with a Toyota Motorsport turbocharger conversion. The manufacturer claims the engine produces 197bhp (200PS) at 6,700rpm and 177lb/ft (240Nm) torque at 3,400rpm.

Weighing just 1,050kg (2,315lbs), this gives it a 0-62mph sprint time of 5.75 seconds and a theoretical top speed of 127mph, though the latter has not been tested. Unlike the standard Aygo, it has no driver aids, power steering or anti-lock brakes but its rear wheel drive layout helps traction under heavy acceleration.WANT.

Toyota claims the Aygo Crazy cost £100,000 to build.Aw. :(

Good luck trying to get a Fit for the sticker price around here.

Interesting. Based on the extremely scientific method of "what I see around", I figured the Fit wasn't selling too well. Meanwhile, the Yaris is going for saturation, and the Smart is doing really well. Then again, there's a Smart dealership in Sacramento somewhere. I halfway want to feign an interest in one enough to get a test drive out of it. :)

i have a honda fit and absolutely LOVE it.

i average 50mpg

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n174/jdm94delsol/new12-7.jpg

The Fit is popular here in the Bay. The number of Smart cars on the road these days reminds me of when the Toyota Prius first came into the market. I'd see one here and there, but not often at all.

Today, on 880 as I sat in traffic on the way home, I saw more Priuses than I saw SUVs. :eek: Okay, maybe not, but I saw at least 3 riding back to back, and at least one anywhere I looked.

oh, and if you are considering either the smart car or the honda fit, you have to think of teh cost of maintenence. the fit will be cheaper to own than the smart car. and you can carry five 6'+ adults easily. and haul a bunch of stuff.

i have a hitch and rack, and easily transport my bicycles

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n174/jdm94delsol/new2-48.jpg

i have a honda fit and absolutely LOVE it.

i average 50mpg
I call bullsh^t. ;)

Nice ride btw. :thumb:

I call bullsh^t. ;)

Nice ride btw. :thumb:

i hypermile like a mofo. that is NOT bull****.

i get better fuel economy in the city than i do on the highway.

oh, im a "newb" on this forum, but im not a newb to forums. please dont call me out. that isnt nice. :thumb:

Don't worry bud, I call bullsh^t a lot around here. ;)

lol. ok. seriously, 50mpg isnt that crazy in a fit. some guys are getting 60 and 70+ mpg.

http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/eco-fit/12400-mileage-reports-manual-transmission-5mt.html

97 Honda Accord station wagon, automatic. Last tankful on the freeway, doing posted limits, got 36.2 mpg

that isnt bad at all!

$80 fill, 300km a tank. 400km if I keep my foot out.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/wethepeople101/103_2433.jpg

I still love it though.

lol. ok. seriously, 50mpg isnt that crazy in a fit. some guys are getting 60 and 70+ mpg.

http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/eco-fit/12400-mileage-reports-manual-transmission-5mt.html
Stickshift only? Any numbers on the auto?

Honda Fit will carry a tandem bicycle inside. Remove front wheel. Riders sit behind each other in the Fit just as they do on a tandem. Neat!
Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

The ForTwo gets 33/40.

That seems low for a car that only weighs 1609 lbs. The Prius is a midsize and gets about 43.

lol. ok. seriously, 50mpg isnt that crazy in a fit. some guys are getting 60 and 70+ mpg.

http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/eco-fit/12400-mileage-reports-manual-transmission-5mt.html

Any special driving techniques to get that? 55mph on the freeway? slowly accelerating?
Since I've been "older", I drive my '94 Pathfinder 55-60 on the freeway and get much better mileage
than 70. I also accelerate up to 2500rpm max then shift.

Stickshift only? Any numbers on the auto?

http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/eco-fit/12399-mileage-reports-automatic-transmission-5at.html?highlight=mileage+automatic

Best mileage in most cars would be about 40mph cruise. Just enough to get you in your top gear.

~30 mpg for the auto. Per the gallons per 100 miles math (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142118.htm) anything above 35 mpg is around the same. Stickshift is not an option for us. :(

~30 mpg for the auto. Per the gallons per 100 miles math (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142118.htm) anything above 35 mpg is around the same. Stickshift is not an option for us. :(

That article is not complete without gasoline prices. 45 mpg is 33% less fuel than 30 mpg. It all hinges on how high fuel prices become in the future.

If you're looking for good gas mileage, compact size and roomy interior look into the Toyota Yaris hatchback. I have one as does my mom. And it gets about 40 miles/gallon!

My wife and I can sit comfortably with a 7yo and 6mo old in the back with room for the stroller. and I also fit my bike in the back with the rear seats folded down... It is also pretty peppy for a 1.3L engine!

It was about $13k for the manual tranny and power everything or about $1000 more for the auto tranny.

Just some food for thought... :)

Plus the Fit always seemed to be marked up and out of stock, at least when we were looking for a car last year.

Good luck!
Gary

If you're looking for good gas mileage, compact size and roomy interior look into the Toyota Yaris hatchback. I have one as does my mom. And it gets about 40 miles/gallon!

My wife and I can sit comfortably with a 7yo and 6mo old in the back with room for the stroller. and I also fit my bike in the back with the rear seats folded down... It is also pretty peppy for a 1.3L engine!

It was about $13k for the manual tranny and power everything or about $1000 more for the auto tranny.

Just some food for thought... :)

Plus the Fit always seemed to be marked up and out of stock, at least when we were looking for a car last year.

Good luck!
Gary

but to get a yaris to be comparable to a fit as far as options and airbags and such, it'd be $17k+

That article is not complete without gasoline prices. 45 mpg is 33% less fuel than 30 mpg. It all hinges on how high fuel prices become in the future.
The only possible way for us to get 45 mpg is to have a hybrid. I'm not about to throw away $25k and hope we get a few dollars' worth of savings a week. Because of popular demand, hybrids are still not economical for us. We're sticking with the tried-and-true gasoline design this time around. Maybe in another 8-10 years full-hybrids (not the stuff that sells nowadays) will be on the scene, and prices will go down.

I understand your point. If you are looking at it from a pocket book perspective, the best values are probably the subcompact Korean models or even a used car. I gather you are looking for a little uniqueness within the subcompact arena, hence the smart. At 1600 lbs though, that car should be getting better fuel consumption. The geo metro at 1700 lbs was rated in the 50+ mpg range.

Highway mileage is also pretty aero limited. That's why it goes up a lot if you are drafting an SUV.
Smart is not very aerodynamic (short and tall)

Since wind resistance increases as a square of your speed, higher speeds take a massive toll on HP. Why else can most reasonably powerful cars do 160 (if unlimited) but it takes over 500hp to go 200 in most cars, and 1000hp to do 250 in a Bugatti Veyron?

Weight is the enemy around town, but it is surpassed by aero drag at speed. My car has a .39 Cd, so pretty effing bad. My previous car had the same motor, weighed 150# more, but had a .32Cd and did easily 2mpg better on the highway at 80ish.

Highway mileage is also pretty aero limited. That's why it goes up a lot if you are drafting an SUV.
Smart is not very aerodynamic (short and tall)

I find myself slyly drafting bigger cars on the freeway. Not too close though.

I saw a Smart for the first time in real life at the end of my block today. That thing is tiny and boxy! I would be concerned about how safe it would be in a accident, especially at highway speeds.

knotty

Results from the Consumer Reports crash tests for the Smart ForTwo:

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/05/smart-crashtest.html
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=937

Honda Fit:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=722

Toyota Yaris:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=716

Honda Civic:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=603