Big Dave -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
...
What were those drawbacks? There were three. First of all was the fact that the transmission was so far below par that it actually negatively impacted the driving experience. It was (and is) jerky and balky, and only the most starry-eyed early-adopter consumers could ignore the fact that it was simply unacceptable for contemporary motoring. Secondly, the mileage wasn’t all that great in comparison to other fuel-efficient offerings out there. And finally, the value component left a lot to be desired because you could simply get more car (as in more room and comfort) - with mileage that was comparable or better to the Smart - for pretty close to the same money as a fully-loaded Smart.
...
As a car, the Smart leaves a lot to be desired. You don’t enter this market with a built-in fatal flaw – and believe me, the Smart gearbox is a fatal flaw – and expect to succeed. Combine that with a value quotient that comes up short when compared to, for example, the Honda Fit, and add to it the notoriously short attention span of the American car buying consumer, and you have a recipe for a short-term proposition in this market, at best, because in the end "buzz" can only carry you so far.
Oh, and by the way, I think there are a few lessons in here somewhere for Sergio’s Fiat-Chrysler entourage, if they can quit pontificating to themselves long enough to pay attention, that is...”
|
Interesting that the article lambasted the tranny. From everything I read, the manumatic was terrible, and ruined the hypermiler potential of the US Smart.
And yes, the Honda Fit is arguably much better for the $.
CarloSW2