RE: Smart Roadster: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
I may have posted in this thread when it first appeared two years ago but I'm going to say again that I really, really enjoyed mine. Yes, the issues are well documented but all cars have compromises. I'm glad I had something so light and yet so useable. With a manual shift, I would probably still have it.
I am aiming to have as many motoring experiences as I can and I'm glad I had that one, even with the shortcomings.
I am aiming to have as many motoring experiences as I can and I'm glad I had that one, even with the shortcomings.
Don't forget these were one of the first paddle shift manuals. To compare with the speed of modern DSG type boxes is like comparing a 60s mini with an 80s Civic.
The Mk3 MR2 had a paddle shift gearbox which is similarly described as dire. It was what was available at the time with technology as it was. It's virtually the same principle employed in Ferrari cars of the time.
Kudos to Smart in my view for having the balls to implement something so new across their vehicle ranges.
The Mk3 MR2 had a paddle shift gearbox which is similarly described as dire. It was what was available at the time with technology as it was. It's virtually the same principle employed in Ferrari cars of the time.
Kudos to Smart in my view for having the balls to implement something so new across their vehicle ranges.
lostkiwi said:
Kudos to Smart in my view for having the balls to implement something so new across their vehicle ranges.
According to those evil swine at Wikipedia the Roadster the production engineering was so bad that Merc lost an average of 3000€ per car on warranty work and decided to stop production.
Bill said:
lostkiwi said:
Don't forget these were one of the first paddle shift manuals. To compare with the speed of modern DSG type boxes is like comparing a 60s mini with an 80s Civic.
And like a mini, while it has fans it's basically a bit s
t. 
I have only owned mine for a couple of months and I allready have smart paranoia. But I should be used to that as I also own 3 fiat coupes.
So far I am very happy with it. Sure it's a tiny car with a tiny engine and a strange gearbox. But as others have said you can work around the gearbox. It may depend on your mechanical feel maybe?
But it's as fast with the paddle change as a manual gearbox.
Mine is the 100 hp model,so it gets along well enough. It's a Brabus so it's a tiny bit sporty. Hey it's not my main ride so I don't worry to much about its foibles.
It certainly draws interest and it's mostly positive. A bit of silence from other petrol head pals but that has stopped when they have a drive.
Here she is.
So far I am very happy with it. Sure it's a tiny car with a tiny engine and a strange gearbox. But as others have said you can work around the gearbox. It may depend on your mechanical feel maybe?
But it's as fast with the paddle change as a manual gearbox.
Mine is the 100 hp model,so it gets along well enough. It's a Brabus so it's a tiny bit sporty. Hey it's not my main ride so I don't worry to much about its foibles.
It certainly draws interest and it's mostly positive. A bit of silence from other petrol head pals but that has stopped when they have a drive.
Here she is.
EnglishTony said:
lostkiwi said:
Kudos to Smart in my view for having the balls to implement something so new across their vehicle ranges.
According to those evil swine at Wikipedia the Roadster the production engineering was so bad that Merc lost an average of 3000€ per car on warranty work and decided to stop production.
Smart had issues with warranty and that's undeniable. The issues were largely around water sealing and water ingress into the SAM unit positioned beneath a poor seal near the windscreen.
When fixed properly (and dealers were notorious amongst owners for not doing it properly and still are) the issues diminished rapidly. Smart are not the only ones to have issues with water sealing as many other ragtop owners will attest.
Smart at the time was losing a lot of money (and not just on the Roadster) so pulled the plug on production. The For Four was also canned at the same time as part of a major drive to reduce costs.
Smart lost €4B between 2003 and 2005. Even at the alleged €3000 per Roadster on a production run of 43000 Roadsters the Roadsters potential losses were a drop in the ocean comparatively (€129M).
It would be interesting to know what the losses on ForTwo were in the same period given the engine failures they were known for (which were not a feature of the Roadster).
In my view the biggest issue the Smart faced was the motoring press who (like many on here) slated the gearbox and either never took the time or showed the ability to adapt to something a little bit different.
I remember a review by Tiff Needell where he tested a Roadster on a track by using it in Auto mode without even commenting on manual modes. Needless to say he slated the gearbox. I had the distinct impression (and I had yet to buy my Roadster) that he had another agenda - not the first time I've thought that when seeing a review and undoubtedly not the last. Evo for example is known for its bias towards certain cars.
For those that base their decisions on reviews and short drives or where they have insufficient skill to extract the best from a vehicle I'm glad you won't have one. It means more around at a sensible price for those that do have the wit to make their own decisions and the ability to extract the fun and capabilities of them.
Edited by lostkiwi on Wednesday 13th April 21:48
EnglishTony said:
^^^^ so why did they stop building it then?
Halfway down second paragraph. Smart were losing lots of money (of which the Roadster was a minor part) so reduced their range back to the core product to cut costs.
In 2006 Smart went into liquidation and was bought by Daimler Benz. The Roadster was not the cause of Smarts financial difficulties nor even a major part of it.
To suggest it was is erroneous.
Bill said:
I think you are (surely) misremembering. If that's a word. I'll have a Google but the MR2 was only 15k iirc.
I think you are completely correct. I thought about it on the way home and reflected how much an MX-5 is today. A shame I can't recall, but it was 19 years ago I guess. And I guess this proves my memory isn't as good as it should be...
Bill said:
Parker's suggests the MR2 was £17-21k vs £10-17k for the Smart.
Ta. So a fairly reasonable price difference.yonex said:
But in the same way just because the seating layout, dimensions and general feel of a Smart Roadster are within the realms of a 'sports car' it doesn't follow that it actually delivers that experience?
IMO it delivers the experience brilliantly. I've driven and owned a few different sports cars over the years, and it does most things "sports car" better or as well as any of them.Pistom said:
I really wanted to like these. It's looks being about the only thing that made it more desireable than the pig ugly Elise of the same era. Nobody would seriously consider one of these in favour of an Elise though surely.
Price has to be the big factor here. Brabus Roadsters are holding value quite well, but they are still in the £3.5k bracket, and regular models are now sub £2k. What sort of an Elise can you get for even double this price point?And for every day transport, the Roadster might not be as capable as an Elise, but it's a lot more livable. They really are no chore to use, get in and out of and they have good luggage space, that is easily accessed.
In the Roadster community (forums) there are few people on there who moved onto VX220's, but actually returned to Roadster ownership. I suspect this is due to 90%+ the same thrills and fun, for less money, 25% better mpg and without the negatives a VX220 has.
Indeed one of the specialist I've spoken to, who is well known in the Roadster community. He has owned an Elise, but claims he found the Roadsters more fun, and built an entire business around doing parts and mods for them.
EnglishTony said:
^^^^ so why did they stop building it then?
Who knows, this sort of thing is never made public.There is a claim that warranty costs where the issues, mostly due to the location of the SAM unit (an ECU controlled fuse box thingy). Which was located in an area that could leak water under certain conditions. This could then wreck the wiring too. And at Stealership labour costs, expensive to sort.
But it's an easy fix to avoid and as the Roadster shares many components and design with the ForTwo and they didn't stop production of that, you hardly need to be Sherlock Holmes to have a hunch that maybe stopping production was a far more complex and bigger reason. Likely being political (internal), target market, company direction, a senior bod just not liking the car.... etc etc
M1C said:
You're right, i shouldn't have perhaps compared it to a DSG box, but the system in the Roadster is not a good one. You shouldn't need to have all those long explanations, describing to people how they should drive the car. If the gearbox in any car is good, be it manual or automatic, you just get in and drive and enjoy it! In the Roadster, the gearbox/change is a stumbling block that you have to work around.
Remember, i'm very much in the camp of overall loving the car (im very much looking forward to my next go in it) , but i dont mind stating that the gearbox is just not good enough, it's always the main talking point on these for that very fact!
To be honest, that is exactly what I did and happened for me. I took one out for a test drive. Having never been in one, I left it in auto. Got down the road and out of the town and thought this auto mode is rubbish. So tried the manual mode.Remember, i'm very much in the camp of overall loving the car
(im very much looking forward to my next go in it) , but i dont mind stating that the gearbox is just not good enough, it's always the main talking point on these for that very fact!SOLD
Went back and bought it.
For me it was never a stumbling block or a head scratcher. It just works. All you have to do is drive it like a normal manual car. As in, whenever you'd start to change gear in a manual, do the same in the Roadster and 99.9% of the time it'll work fine. The only time trouble happens is if you try and drive it like a Play Station game.
Jeremy Clarkson illustrated this perfectly in his ham fisted stereotypical ignorant way. You can find the Top Gear review on YouTube. Part way through he "demonstrates" the gearbox.
"Put your foot down, then down shift and it takes ages"
No sh*t Sherlock
Try that in a manual and it'll be equally rubbish. If you haven't noticed the blatant mistake, you'd downshift first, then put your foot down.
300bhp/ton said:
Ignoring the gearbox, as most owners of these cars don't see it as an issue. What exactly was "poorly implemented"?
The only thing I can think of is the drainage system for the soft top, which rarely works properly. Apart from that, it's an awesome little car. If I had the space I'd buy one tomorrow as a second car.Engines require top end rebuilds and turbos fail, the electronics are in a single SAM which is under the carpet in the front, that fails. Wheels are made of monkey metal and fail.
Other than that...
I actually quite like them, I'd probably buy another, however, lets not pretend they're in anyway solid
Other than that...
I actually quite like them, I'd probably buy another, however, lets not pretend they're in anyway solid
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff