>>this car is probably not taller than the snow drifts I see on any given winter day<<

A woman driving a smart came to my office and parked her car right next to my Toyota Camry. The length of the smart was only to the back of the front seats of the Toyota but the smart stood at least 6 inches taller than the Toyota.

. . . was a hell of a lot lighter than a modern car, no airbags, no reinforcement, no pedestrian safety features.

The modern engine is lighter and more powerful at a better fuel economy than anything made in the eighties. But the modern car is also much safer, and as a result, much heavier.

Farhad, I am a huge fan so thanks for your note. However, I also have a car that turns the passenger airbag off automatically and I still put my boy in the back. Having been raised in the days when you got to drive on your father's lap, I am surprised that any of us survived!

But this is from the CDC :

"# All children ages 12 years and younger should ride in the back seat. Adults should avoid placing children in front of airbags. Putting children in the back seat eliminates the injury risk of deployed front passenger-side airbags and places children in the safest part of the vehicle in the event of a crash.

# Overall, for children less than 16 years, riding in the back seat is associated with a 40% reduction in the risk of serious injury.10 To learn more about effective interventions to increase child safety seat use, visit CDC's Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety page. "

Parkable, great mpg, room for someone 6'5" and so cute to look at.

Back to the future?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN0LQJLabqA

After tepid commentary on how poor the thing drives, Mr. Manjoo gushes that the saving grace is it will allow him to drive ANYWHERE! Just what we need - new auto technology that encourages people to continue driving. At 33 MPG (on the best day) this is no breakthrough, rather a distinct step backward from, say, a Prius. It's small enough to fit on a bike path, so we have that dangerous displacement to look forward to as well. Methinks the Machinist is way off base here; this is the wrong message.

From 1980 to 1997 I drove a VW Rabbit Diesel. It got 41 mpg in the city - and I mean stop-and-go rush hour driving, short trips with lots of idling at red lights, etc., the worst possible conditions for mileage. On the highway it got over 52 mpg.

It met all the pollution and safety requirements including the old 5 mph bumper test. Weighed 2200+ pounds, so it wasn't a lightweight. Handled well, fun to drive, simple and easy to work on. Extremely reliable too.

All with the diesel technology of 30+ years ago.

I only let it go because the rust was becoming unmanageable after all those snowy Northeast winters.

GM's awful 1970s diesel cars gave oilburners a bad name in the USA. In Europe, diesels have enormous market share and get incredible mileage, but for various reasons most of them aren't sold here.

Veering slightly OT here. I have had a consumer crush on the Fit for months, however, it doesn't make financial sense for me to replace my 6-year-old pickup for at least another two years. Spending 17K now to save $1200 to $1500 per year doesn't cut it.

A British friend has a Fit, except it's called the Jazz over there. He gets (and the honda.co.uk website confirms this) 51 mpg. Yes, they do miles over there.

The Imperial gallon is 25% bigger than the American gallon (160 ounces compared to 128 ounces). The American Honda Fit gets 31/34 mpg according to the website, which means it would get 39/43 to the imperial gallon.

The Jazz has a different engine than the Fit. So what's the deal? Why isn't the Fit available over here with the Jazz engine? Can someone explain this to me?

It's got to get better mileage. It needs to change my relationship with the gas pump. I've sat in a Smart, and to make it safe they've beefed up the pillars so the windows feel kind of small; the overall effect is claustrophobic. I'm sure one gets over that, but 33 MPG simply doesn't warrant the sacrifices.

I live in an inner-ring suburb, 9 miles from my downtown job. Parking in the city isn't a problem for me, it's parking at home! My 1952 2-car garage fits two cars fine, but then there's no storage area left. (One of today's large SUVs would never fit.) I was thinking of getting a Smart to replace our second car and free up space in my garage for four bikes. We would still have my wife's larger car for family outings. But for my commute, two seats are fine. Just a reminder, there are a lot of reasons for choosing a car. The trick is weighing them all out. I couldn't see myself in a Fit--I've spent all of my twenties in a Honda Civic. Like a Mini, this is a small car with its own personality. And it's a car that will appeal to a range of household incomes and demographics for different reasons--not just those who are only looking for better MPG or an economy car price point. Maybe it's not always practical, but practical doesn't always weigh into car buying decisions--or I would be driving a minivan.

Re: your question about the different engines in the US Fit versus the European market Jazz - I don't know for sure, but I suspect that Honda US went with a slightly larger engine because they were concerned about the odds of being able to sell a car with a 1.2l engine (the one that you cite which gets ~50 mpg). The acceleration probably just isn't enough for US consumers.

More likely, though, is that they didn't want to risk the cost of federalizing the engine without some sense of whether or not the car would sell.

Those were my two theories also: either the engine was so underpowered it wouldn't sell, or it wasn't worth modifying for US standards.

Oh well...

The Mini and the Fiat 500 were revolutionary. The original Beetle was revolutionary. The Ford Model T was revolutionary. None of these were revolutionary necessarily because of the technology they used, but because they brought mobility to the masses. They were small - well, at least the Mini and the original Cinquecento were - because cost needed to be low, and small size was one part of keeping costs down.

The Smart car, by comparison, without a modern diesel, is more of a discretionary luxury - a comfortable car, loaded with technology, that provides a luxury in the form of ease of use in the city.

Whatever we may think of it as consumers, we're more likely be driving the next generation of Fiat 500 than we are Smart car, if only because of fuel prices - car companies will merge our desire for personal mobility with the demands that lower fuel consumption, and next thing you know we'll be driving Tata Indicas and the like.