Impressive results for Smart ForTwo in IIHS crash-test

ah yet again, conflicting results from the two testers.

i love how everyone who has reported these results have failed to mention the "average" grading from NHTSA

Why crashing it into a concrete wall? Most traffic accidents involve at least two vehicles.

Crash it into an Escalade or something. Then you'll see why driving this is bad for your health.

While an Escalade is an extreme, I think all you would need is a Camry or Taurus or something similar.
It just angers me that this test result will make the buyers of this vehicle feel like they will be safe in your average accident in the US.
In Europe, or even in big cities here it makes sense, as long as the speeds are low and the other vehicle is small, but on the LA freeway system, where I see more and more of them, no. At least no more than a motorcycle. I guess that's what you could consider it, a very, very safe motorcycle, with comfort for two.
I guess it will take bodies and lawsuits to hash this one out...

We'll all lose to an 18 wheeler or a garbage/cement/dump truck. Just stay in your house and don't go anywhere like me and wait for fire/Radon/tornado/terrorists/etc to get you.

Leland; Radon is hunting you down? crappy. I'd lock myself in my house too.

Raptor, you're right. these "safety" boards need to tell you some comparative numbers. if this car is "safe" at a 45 mph colision against itself, then its good for a 30mph colision against a camry, or a 20 mph colision against an escalade. They need to tell people that.

otherwise, you get what gus is saying... "oh its a 5 star crash car... i'm good to max this baby out and then hit a transport truck.... those germans are so innovative... and its made in france which gives me class". You can't buy class... although most hybrid drivers would beg to differ.

Leland lives in his own deluded world.
And when his smart comes up against something far smaller than an 18 wheeler, his last thoughts will be "at least I helped save the world!!!" and Al Gore will make a movie about him called "An Inconvenient Crunch"...

I tend to think that the IIHS have more realistic tests and better evaluations. The offset frontal crash test is a better indicator than just cashing into a wall straight on. There has already been an offset test done with a Mercedes S class, and it was quite spectacular. Unfortunately it was in German so I didn’t get the final verdict. Anyone care to interpret?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02eghIfyHP0

What the guy says after the crash is, that the smart fell on its side AFTER the dangerous moment had already passed but it still makes the rescue of probably injured drivers more difficult.
Two things you mustn't forget:
1. Unlinke almost every other car the smart has a heavy steel sceleton to equalize the missing crush zone. Take a look and you'll see that the Smarts shape stays almost the same while the S-Class is seriously crushed and an S-Class is way more durable than a camry. I'd love to see a crash test Smart vs. Camry, I can imagine the Camry driver would have a higher risk of injury.
2. Crash safety is not only about making cars safe for those inside but also for those outside. Still almost no car gets more than 2 out of 5 stars in the pedestrian impact test of the Euro NCAP. Driving a big car because you put your health before that of others is plain ignorant and egoistic.

Yes it has a sceleton. No, it can't equalize missing crush zone. Deceleration kills you, not broken passenger cell. There is no substitution for a two meter crush zone.

By the way, Audi Q7, Nissan Pathfinder and Volvo XC90 are more pedestrian friendly than Renault Clio or Smart Forfour. And they are more than twice as large and heavy. Check out NCAP resoults.

vb, raptor has pretty much summed it up right there. theres no replacement for a crush zone. it helps buffer the difference in speed in car crashes, slowing you down over a longer period of time, which means you're less likely to suffer internal bleeding. it also allows for a buffer between the hard parts of your car and the pedestrian you just mowed. mass is key in a car crash, but SIZE is the key in a pedestrian crash.

you tell ever soccer mom out there, or anyone for that matter, who has ever bought a large car so their kids would be safer, that they were being egotistical. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of SUV drivers have kids. It's like a minivan but heavier. thats why everyone bought them. that isn't egotistical, that is a very very human thing. I'd argue that there's nothing more human than spawning something and doing anything and everything to protect it.

but don't be egotistical... go ahead and drive a smart yourself. heck.. put your kids in one. they're the cheapest mercedes you'll ever own.

What is with this attitude of safety at any cost? It's very selfish! It's like an arms race. One person drives something impossibly tall and terribly heavy so we all have to, just to see the road and survive crashes that we should really be trying to avoid at all costs.
As for the Smart, some people will be happier with the very real benefit to the environment, their pocketbook and their chic factor than with decreasing their risk of death from 0.01% to 0.008% or whatever it is (based on 42,000 road fatalities per year in the US).
I'd rather have a well-maintained Saab 9-3 turbo than an Escalade - crunch me if you can!

Raptor, you're perfectly right that the sceleton doesn't completely equalize the missing crunch zone, but it helps a lot and deceleration is definetely NOT the only fatal thing in a crash, take a Landwind for example, good luck surviving this:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Ts94rjr4M
Now tell me a broken passenger cell can't be deadly one more time.
You're right again, that big cars can have a better NCAP pedestrian-impact rating than small cars and there is no test that I know of so far, measuring how dangerous a car is to other cars, BUT THERE SHOULD BE! And that's the point I wanted to make.

hey roy, I'm with you.. I don't need to remind everyone here that I drive a focus, and probably wont drive anything much bigger for the rest of my life, seeing the way things are heading. I commute 70km a day, most of it is non stop, and it makes sense for me. If I lived in a city where I'm stopped just as long as I'm moving, or for that matter, stuck in traffic all the time, I'd probably consider something even smaller. I'm a pretty big guy so what ever is comfortable for me and the girlfriend is all i want and need. I'd buy a 2 seater coupe if ford made one. I'd be happy as hell with a nice 3 door fiesta when that comes out too. I really do get it.

I'm just saying, I've also been doing 80mph down I-94 and got buffeted to hell from the draft off a transport truck. Small cars can be scary stuff. If I had kids, I know I'd be psycho about protecting them, and if that means going up a notch or three in the vehicle department, thats what I'll do. very real benefit of helping the environment? lets get something straight, the environment isnt going to change one bit if I chose to drive a 6.4L turbo diesel excursion or a Fiesta. and there's nothing more real than the constant thought of your kids brain matter splattered on that little chrome bull dog swimming through your head every time you pass a transport truck in a 2500lbs compact car on a single lane highway.

but like I said, if you live in a metro area like manhattan where a 53' trailer is more rare than a transvestite midget hooker, the biggest thing you need to worry about is getting sandwiched between two crown vics going 10 mph.

the point that I was trying to make in the beginning of all of this is that you have two safety committees that are giving differing results, and the liberal media wants to give you the news that will make you go out and buy the products that are going to be greenest. they won't bad mouth this thing,... they wont remind people that theres another crash test for it saying that it's not "impressive". This is the only place that I've even heard mention of the other results.

I agree with the goal of the liberal media, the eco nazis, and all of this global warming chicken little crap. the problem that I have is the means that it is being done. no one stops to think for themselves anymore. I think the people on this page are pretty good about it, but the general population thinks that the worlds going to burn within 50 years, that we'll live in bubbles, and oil wells will dry up within 10 years. the media has an agenda, and has scarred the general population into thinking this crap, so that they will do what should be done in the first place.

Does the end justify the means? yes.. I think it does, but I'm going to argue it every step of the way. it's unethical as hell. "heres a car called the smart,.. these guys say that its safe, these other guys say it isnt. but it has great mileage, and everyone should buy it. I'll just publish the results saying that it's safe.. no need to worry all the little sheep."

"transvestite midget hooker" Chris- you slay me, man...

To anyone who thinks of the Smart as safe, consider this:
Put a person inside a sphere of unobtanium. Completely uncrushable, no intrustion whatsoever. Slam it into a wall, the person will look unharmed, and dead.
This is what happens when the car has to be made incredibly stiff so as to prevent intrusion, as is the case with the Smart, where the crush zone is YOU.

I'm all for sacrificing for the greater good, as long as I'm not sacrificing my legs...

Do you guys know this thing is gonna go from anywhere between $12-$17K? Raise your hand anyone who would take a Smart for $15K vs my niece's Yaris 4 door for $12K.

This car may be OK for Europe but here it's a fashion statement. You'll see more than a few in that place where people are mostly disconnected from reality: Hollywood.

Makes sense. You see a lot of them here in Orange County, California, headquarters of the more money than brains club.

Hecotr; exactly. thats why i use manhattan as an example. u can park it damned easy, and it's easy to get in and out of (the seating is actually higher than in my focus). It's surprisingly spacious for a 9 foot long car. but in the end it doesnt have any gains over other small cars. it's just that it has a small engine. I'm sure toyota will come out with a 1L for their yaris and then run the ads "why drive a smart when you can get the same mileage from THIS" and then show it booting through the urban slolum (sp?) course known as gridlock. At least it makes for a better fashion statement then an H1. GOD am I glad those days are over.

Gus; I'm here mostly to entertain you. I don't do it often but when I do, I'll give you gems like that. And that isn't an exaggeration and everyone knows it. Well, not intimately I hope.

The smart actually "uses" the front-end crush zone of bigger cars.
Additionally the smart features a tridion safety cell witch is very strong.
Have a look at this video, it shows the old model of the smart Fortwo, the new one is even safer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

The passenger cell does NOT collapse, even if the car is crashed into a concrete wall at 70 miles an hour, as you can see in the video above.
The concrete-crash is very extreme and you wouldn't survive that in any car because rapidly decellerating from 70mph to 0mph is too much for you inner organs.
But it is impressive to see how rigid this tiny car is engineered and how it will save you in regular crashes.