http://www.themotorreport.com.au/57093/ ... ved-report
I think this is brilliant. If they brought back the 3 cyl turbo and RWD it'll be an absolute corker!
Cappuccino to be revived!
I guess that would depend on how they engineered the safety cage on it. I saw the Smart go 70 MPH into a concrete barrier and the tests showed the occupants would have survived. Lower leg injury to the driver. The passenger door still opened although the drivers door was wedged shut. I was pretty unbelievable what good shape the car came out in after the crash.murcod wrote:There are a few getting around in Australia. Definitely wouldn't want to run into anything in one, you wouldn't stand a chance against anything bigger than a pebble.
2011 Kizashi SLS CVT (silver)
2005 Honda Odyssey
Priors:
2009 Suzuki SX4 Cross AWD 5-speed Tech package (vapor metallic blue)
2005 Honda Odyssey
Priors:
2009 Suzuki SX4 Cross AWD 5-speed Tech package (vapor metallic blue)
You can't beat physics though. Especially when it isn't a wall but a 2 tonne 4WD and the Cappuccino bonnet goes straight underneath it, leaving only the windscreen to protect you! The Cappucino's are really tiny. You really have to see one in the flesh to believe how small they are.
Not sure if this link will work, but it will give some idea. http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Shared/Gal ... dPetrol%3b
Even if it was a 5 star rated vehicle you'd still lose every time against a heavier 5 star vehicle. That's the problem with those tests, you don't normally crash into a fixed wall- it's often another vehicle heading in the opposite direction.
Not sure if this link will work, but it will give some idea. http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Shared/Gal ... dPetrol%3b
Even if it was a 5 star rated vehicle you'd still lose every time against a heavier 5 star vehicle. That's the problem with those tests, you don't normally crash into a fixed wall- it's often another vehicle heading in the opposite direction.
David
It would have never come to the US.Woodie wrote:Dam, doesn't that just figure. They quit the US and THEN they decide to do what I've been waiting for for 20 years.
The Cappuccino is a kei-car and these cars have to meet strict specifications on max engine displacement, vehicle weight, vehicle width, etc. to be considered a kei-car. The benefit is that they fit into a separate vehicle category and have the cheapest taxes. Their small size, low cost of ownership, and superior fuel economy make them great cars for many people in Japan where fuel is about double the cost of the US and the roads are narrower.
This special category also does not meet US crash test standards. In fact, Japan has different emissions and crash test standards than the US and that is why you just can't import and drive JDM cars in the US. This is the reason why GT-R fanboys can't get their hands on R34 Nissan Skyline GT-Rs for street use legally. I have heard of those that snuck them in and when these idiots got busted street racing, the state government literally had the cars crushed due to the fact the car itself was illegal.
People don't drive nearly as fast in Japan as they do in the US. Highway and freeway speed limits are far lower than in the US so it makes sense that these tiny cars don't have to meet the standards of American cars which are bigger and travel faster.
The rumor was that Suzuki in Japan was working on making the Swift meet US specs. That was an indicator that they may have imported them to the US once again. However, Suzuki bailed out from North America before they got around to it. Such a shame.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
The Smart has indeed a very strong structure, but that does not make it a safe car.LPSISRL wrote: I guess that would depend on how they engineered the safety cage on it. I saw the Smart go 70 MPH into a concrete barrier and the tests showed the occupants would have survived. Lower leg injury to the driver. The passenger door still opened although the drivers door was wedged shut. I was pretty unbelievable what good shape the car came out in after the crash.
In an automobile crash, there are 3 points of impact.
1) The car hitting the exterior object whether it be another car, tree, wall, etc.
2) The occupant body hitting the interior of the car.
3) The internal organs of the occupants hitting other organs, bones, etc.
The Smart only does #1 well in that the structure does not give in easily. However, because it lacks crumple zones that ABSORB impact, the energy from the impact is transferred to the occupants more so than in a larger car with crumple zones. This means the occupants are more likely to have injuries from their bodies hitting the inside of the car and also their organs hitting each other or bones because of inertia. This can result in devastating internal injuries.
The lack of the Smart's ability to absorb impact forces also makes it dangerous in that it literally gets flung aside. Below is a video of the crash between a Mercedes C Class and a Smart. Both are Daimler products and even the C Class is considered somewhat of a small car. Even then, the difference is huge because the C Class is heavier and also has crumple zones.
The Smart is only good for people who live in an inner city and rarely drive long distances or high speeds. It was not designed for the American freeway or even the highway. It also has one of the worst transmissions in a current production vehicle and the fuel economy is not impressive for its size. I've heard it's rather miserable to drive.
If I was looking for a car that small, I'd go for the Scion iQ any day over the Smart.
[youtube][/youtube]
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)