RE: Smart Roadster: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
vrooom said:
If it has manual box... it would be great.
It's just a shame this never happened:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Kimber
Someone has wedged a Citroen C2 VTR engine into one, but sadly used the Citroen robotised manual box, and ditched the De-Dion rear suspension in favour of a very ropey looking trailing arm system. Seems a shame to put that much work in and not go for a manual box at least.
PaulG40 said:
Why do people get so pent up about the leaks. Don't chase them. Fix them in a oner so you'll never have them the first place. Preventative maintenance.
From most of the comments it appears as you will never make them totally waterproof. After pulling long hours at work and having a family spending needless time fixing a poor design isn't high on my list. If the car was much better than its peers or amazingly unique it would be worth the bother. To me it's just not.yonex said:
From most of the comments it appears as you will never make them totally waterproof. After pulling long hours at work and having a family spending needless time fixing a poor design isn't high on my list. If the car was much better than its peers or amazingly unique it would be worth the bother. To me it's just not.
But how would you compare the leaks against the rust on fairly young MX5s? And for the record, according to my pal (smart specialist) smart roadsters really do not rust. He also says he has never rebuilt a roadster engine at 36k, that if serviced they easily exceed 100k; and that it is a total lack of oil changes plus a refusal to do anything about the timing chain wear that ensues that kills these engines early (at about 70k miles - but you have to be totally mechanically unsympathetic).
yonex said:
PaulG40 said:
Why do people get so pent up about the leaks. Don't chase them. Fix them in a oner so you'll never have them the first place. Preventative maintenance.
From most of the comments it appears as you will never make them totally waterproof. After pulling long hours at work and having a family spending needless time fixing a poor design isn't high on my list. If the car was much better than its peers or amazingly unique it would be worth the bother. To me it's just not.The only thing I've done on my was preventative and that was to seal the compartment above the SAM unit. But the car lives outside 24/7, the carpets are in place and never been out and are completely dry.
And let's face it, this is meant to be PH. If the bulls
t you are saying is so true, then no fker here would own Caterham, TVR or classic car. But evidently that isn't the case. 300bhp/ton said:
yonex said:
PaulG40 said:
Why do people get so pent up about the leaks. Don't chase them. Fix them in a oner so you'll never have them the first place. Preventative maintenance.
From most of the comments it appears as you will never make them totally waterproof. After pulling long hours at work and having a family spending needless time fixing a poor design isn't high on my list. If the car was much better than its peers or amazingly unique it would be worth the bother. To me it's just not.The only thing I've done on my was preventative and that was to seal the compartment above the SAM unit. But the car lives outside 24/7, the carpets are in place and never been out and are completely dry.
And let's face it, this is meant to be PH. If the bulls
t you are saying is so true, then no fker here would own Caterham, TVR or classic car. But evidently that isn't the case. 300bhp/ton said:
They don't leak any worse than any other car of this type. Be it an MGF, MX5 or a number of others. But it is one of those points prats on the internet, usually ones who don't own such a car, like to pick up on and tote out.
The only thing I've done on my was preventative and that was to seal the compartment above the SAM unit. But the car lives outside 24/7, the carpets are in place and never been out and are completely dry.
And let's face it, this is meant to be PH. If the bullst you are saying is so true, then no fker here would own Caterham, TVR or classic car. But evidently that isn't the case.
The only thing I've done on my was preventative and that was to seal the compartment above the SAM unit. But the car lives outside 24/7, the carpets are in place and never been out and are completely dry.
And let's face it, this is meant to be PH. If the bulls
t you are saying is so true, then no fker here would own Caterham, TVR or classic car. But evidently that isn't the case. You really are a sad f
ker. Always the first to complain. I was asked the question 'why' so I answered, absolutely shag all to do with you or what you feel about the car. Your name calling is frankly hilarious. Perhaps if you worked harder and spent less time in here you would have a garage to put the Smart in 
You've just backed up my point. A TVR and/or Caterham are labours of love, why, because they offer something unique. For your info I had a seven with an aero screen and drove it year round, don't talk about things you don't know sod all about.
The Smart wasn't a massive success, that's a fact. You're no authority on anything, many owners without the desperate need to have their choices accepted and egos fanned will talk openly about the cars shortcomings. You can't accept this or any kind of opinion other than your own. You talk endlessly about TVR's, Caterhams, Type R's yet have never and prolly will never own them. In future mind your own f
king business you epic fool.heebeegeetee said:
But how would you compare the leaks against the rust on fairly young MX5s?
And for the record, according to my pal (smart specialist) smart roadsters really do not rust. He also says he has never rebuilt a roadster engine at 36k, that if serviced they easily exceed 100k; and that it is a total lack of oil changes plus a refusal to do anything about the timing chain wear that ensues that kills these engines early (at about 70k miles - but you have to be totally mechanically unsympathetic).
We had a 2000 MX5 in the US. That took some serious storms and didn't leak, misted up which was a pain. Can't comment on the earlier ones but they are substantially cheaper than Smarts, would you not be able buy a 2000/1 MX instead? FWIW I'm not overly keen on them, always felt a bit gutless next to my DC2, the MR2 or S2K would be my candidates if I was in the market for sub £4-5 soft tops. And for the record, according to my pal (smart specialist) smart roadsters really do not rust. He also says he has never rebuilt a roadster engine at 36k, that if serviced they easily exceed 100k; and that it is a total lack of oil changes plus a refusal to do anything about the timing chain wear that ensues that kills these engines early (at about 70k miles - but you have to be totally mechanically unsympathetic).
As I have said throughout the Brabus Roadster is kind of cool, it's just not well enough resolved for me.
yonex said:
We had a 2000 MX5 in the US. That took some serious storms and didn't leak, misted up which was a pain. Can't comment on the earlier ones but they are substantially cheaper than Smarts, would you not be able buy a 2000/1 MX instead? FWIW I'm not overly keen on them, always felt a bit gutless next to my DC2, the MR2 or S2K would be my candidates if I was in the market for sub £4-5 soft tops.
As I have said throughout the Brabus Roadster is kind of cool, it's just not well enough resolved for me.
Have to admit, the Brabus versions do look pretty cool. However, for the money they go for there are better options for what basically will be a weekend toy.As I have said throughout the Brabus Roadster is kind of cool, it's just not well enough resolved for me.
St John Smythe said:
300bhp/ton said:
yonex said:
PaulG40 said:
Why do people get so pent up about the leaks. Don't chase them. Fix them in a oner so you'll never have them the first place. Preventative maintenance.
From most of the comments it appears as you will never make them totally waterproof. After pulling long hours at work and having a family spending needless time fixing a poor design isn't high on my list. If the car was much better than its peers or amazingly unique it would be worth the bother. To me it's just not.The only thing I've done on my was preventative and that was to seal the compartment above the SAM unit. But the car lives outside 24/7, the carpets are in place and never been out and are completely dry.
And let's face it, this is meant to be PH. If the bulls
t you are saying is so true, then no fker here would own Caterham, TVR or classic car. But evidently that isn't the case. Whilst its true the Smart Roadster was not the corporate success Mercedes/Smart would have liked it can't be deemed a failure either as the production run is significantly higher numbers than the Elise (unless that's similarly deemed a failure?) and the UK sales for the period the Roadster was sold matched the Honda S2000 (so is that also a failure?).
The Smart does have its faults. Its prone so some fairly well documented leaks (most of which have been sorted on most cars by now) and they can be a little temperamental at times (cycle valves/clutch actuators etc) but not significantly worse than many other cars on the road.
That said its also something of a masterpiece of design with a surprising amount of room in a very compact package. There is nothing else on the market that is as compact yet can carry two six foot adults in comfort along with 3 suitcases (2 on the non-coupe). Its brisk as opposed to quick with more fun at lower speeds than just about anything else on the market.
The Smart does have its faults. Its prone so some fairly well documented leaks (most of which have been sorted on most cars by now) and they can be a little temperamental at times (cycle valves/clutch actuators etc) but not significantly worse than many other cars on the road.
That said its also something of a masterpiece of design with a surprising amount of room in a very compact package. There is nothing else on the market that is as compact yet can carry two six foot adults in comfort along with 3 suitcases (2 on the non-coupe). Its brisk as opposed to quick with more fun at lower speeds than just about anything else on the market.
Dave200 said:
St John Smythe said:
300bhp/ton said:
yonex said:
PaulG40 said:
Why do people get so pent up about the leaks. Don't chase them. Fix them in a oner so you'll never have them the first place. Preventative maintenance.
From most of the comments it appears as you will never make them totally waterproof. After pulling long hours at work and having a family spending needless time fixing a poor design isn't high on my list. If the car was much better than its peers or amazingly unique it would be worth the bother. To me it's just not.The only thing I've done on my was preventative and that was to seal the compartment above the SAM unit. But the car lives outside 24/7, the carpets are in place and never been out and are completely dry.
And let's face it, this is meant to be PH. If the bulls
t you are saying is so true, then no fker here would own Caterham, TVR or classic car. But evidently that isn't the case. On topic - a lot of MK1 and MK2 MX5 also leak like a sieve *and* they have their ECU mounted in the passenger footwell, the bottom edge of which can sometimes sit in a puddle. Strangely, it keeps working (while the metal around it rusts away...).
For the record, my Roadster didn't leak at all.
I often wonder if Mercedes forgot to spec a conformal coating for the SAM unit (or if it was just applied really badly). I never got round to looking.
Edited by dxg on Friday 20th December 11:46
dxg said:
I often wonder if Mercedes forgot to spec a conformal coating for the SAM unit (or if it was just applied really badly). I never got round to looking.
The car doesn't appear to have been designed to meet Merc's normal internal standards, though I suppose that's not surprising given it was a much smaller, cheaper segment to what they were used to. It would be interesting to read more about the development of the car, certainly more so than tedious arguments about how "st" it was compared to other, dissimilar cars.Frik said:
The car doesn't appear to have been designed to meet Merc's normal internal standards, though I suppose that's not surprising given it was a much smaller, cheaper segment to what they were used to. It would be interesting to read more about the development of the car, certainly more so than tedious arguments about how "st" it was compared to other, dissimilar cars.
And thats it exactly. It doesn't compare directly to any other car that was available at the time. t" it was compared to other, dissimilar cars.lostkiwi said:
Frik said:
The car doesn't appear to have been designed to meet Merc's normal internal standards, though I suppose that's not surprising given it was a much smaller, cheaper segment to what they were used to. It would be interesting to read more about the development of the car, certainly more so than tedious arguments about how "st" it was compared to other, dissimilar cars.
And thats it exactly. It doesn't compare directly to any other car that was available at the time. t" it was compared to other, dissimilar cars.shandyboy said:
radio man said:
Dan compares the Smart with the MX-5 and the Lotus Elise and that is where Dan loses his argument, both the Mazda and the lotus look like real cars designed by adults for adults whereas the Smart looks as if it has been made out of Leggo by a 6yr old for pedalling around his back garden.
Is that *honestly* the best you can come up with?I know a lot of contributors have said how much fun the car is to drive and that is something i doubt that I will ever experience as, although aesthetics usually play little or no part in my car buying , it is like most PH'ers all round performance, this is one of few cars that are the exception to the rule. I truly cannot see a smart car without thinking that I wouldn't be seen dead in one.
Remember this is just my opinion and everybody else has their opinion, I had hoped that my remarks may have brought a bit of dun to the conversation, but never mind.
Have a good Christmas and new year and enjoy whatever you drive.
shandyboy said:
radio man said:
Dan compares the Smart with the MX-5 and the Lotus Elise and that is where Dan loses his argument, both the Mazda and the lotus look like real cars designed by adults for adults whereas the Smart looks as if it has been made out of Leggo by a 6yr old for pedalling around his back garden.
Is that *honestly* the best you can come up with?I know a lot of contributors have said how much fun the car is to drive and that is something i doubt that I will ever experience as, although aesthetics usually play little or no part in my car buying , it is like most PH'ers all round performance, this is one of few cars that are the exception to the rule. I truly cannot see a smart car without thinking that I wouldn't be seen dead in one.
Remember this is just my opinion and everybody else has their opinion, I had hoped that my remarks may have brought a bit of fun to the conversation, but never mind.
Have a good Christmas and new year and enjoy whatever you drive.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff