RE: Smart Roadster: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
C70R said:
I've had a bash at one, and was pleasantly surprised. For something so underpowered it gave some genuine thrills. However, in ~150 miles I just couldn't bond with (or "drive around") the gearbox. It always seemed to be doing the opposite of what I wanted! (coming from someone who owns a lazy tiptronic automatic, and has driven plenty of DSG 'boxes)
Just curious and with the intent of it being a friendly discussion 
Are you able to describe in more detail what was happening, what you wanted it to do, or what it didn't do.
I'm sure "opposite" isn't accurate, else it would be up shifting when you tried to downshift
But I am curious.
I've only driven 1 Roadster, my one. And I just can't relate to any of that. It downshifts almost immediately, as soon as pull the lever it does something and has mostly completed the downshift by the time I get my hand back to the steering wheel.
Up shifts, maybe not quite as brisk, but it changes gear when I want it too.
I do admit, when I had it remapped, I also had the rev limiter increased, this made it much easier to hit the red line and avoid the computer trying to auto shift up, which it does all to easily if you try and hit the red line as it doesn't allow you any leeway. And auto shifting also seemed somewhat dim witted. Which I proved doing some standing 1/4 mile tests, auto vs manually telling it to change gear.
I've posted these before, maybe even earlier in this thread.
Manual TR7, same gearbox as in some TVR's. Not the slickest and I wasn't power shifting, just changing gear fast.
Now compare to the Roadster.
The gearchange time is pretty similar.
Bill said:
The overwhelming ownership evidence that consists of a few owners saying the gearbox is fine and a few who say the box is an issue but they still love the car.
Pop over to the smart or Roadster forum and it isn't a few, it's a lot that think it's fine and like it.Bill said:
And a large group who say they hated the box and it ruined the car for them
Remember this large group is probably 90% populated by people who have never even been in one, they are just re-voicing what they have heard other people or motoring reviews say.300bhp/ton said:
Just curious and with the intent of it being a friendly discussion
Are you able to describe in more detail what was happening, what you wanted it to do, or what it didn't do.
I'm sure "opposite" isn't accurate, else it would be up shifting when you tried to downshift
But I am curious.
I've only driven 1 Roadster, my one. And I just can't relate to any of that. It downshifts almost immediately, as soon as pull the lever it does something and has mostly completed the downshift by the time I get my hand back to the steering wheel.
Up shifts, maybe not quite as brisk, but it changes gear when I want it too.
Your "dim witted" point is perfect. I couldn't have described it better.Are you able to describe in more detail what was happening, what you wanted it to do, or what it didn't do.
I'm sure "opposite" isn't accurate, else it would be up shifting when you tried to downshift
But I am curious.
I've only driven 1 Roadster, my one. And I just can't relate to any of that. It downshifts almost immediately, as soon as pull the lever it does something and has mostly completed the downshift by the time I get my hand back to the steering wheel.
Up shifts, maybe not quite as brisk, but it changes gear when I want it too.
If I'm being honest, the manual mode was nowhere near as responsive as I would expect/hope from an automated manual - my CLK430 slushbox probably gets the job done as quickly, and it's not a patch on a decent manual. The early auto-upshift was absolutely baffling when pushing on, but I suppose that's a common complaint of auto boxes. Truthfully, even in manual I felt it was lacking something quite significant compared to the MX5 and MR2, but just my opinion.
Automatic mode doesn't need too much comment, as reams have already been written/typed. It just never felt like it was working logically, or with me - I was just fighting it, rather than using it to go with the flow. It felt like a very poor relation of the early DSG boxes (I've kangaroo'd onto many a roundabout), which completely negated the point of it being an automated manual. I'd put my foot down from a standstill and it would do nothing, I'd poke it slightly on the move in second and it's suddenly screaming in first.
A fun enough car alright, but not one I'd grab the keys for again in a hurry.
People who like them like them, but that's a self-selecting group. That's like holding the Allegro forum up as evidence the Allegro is great.
I'm genuinely pleased you think they're great, but you don't need to keep arguing with people who don't.
eace:
300bhp/ton said:
Remember this large group is probably 90% populated by people who have never even been in one, they are just re-voicing what they have heard other people or motoring reviews say.
Plenty of people (me included) have said they've driven one. I wanted to like it, but couldn't.I'm genuinely pleased you think they're great, but you don't need to keep arguing with people who don't.
eace:The gear changes are reasonably quick IMO, not as quick as you could achieve in something with a good manual transmission, but not as slow or terrible as some suggest either.
When you use a manual transmission you are busy doing stuff during the gear change, pressing the clutch down, maybe blipping the throttle on a down change if you are a half decent driver, shifting, releasing the clutch. The transmission on the Smart does all that for you at a similar speed and the driver does nothing but wait for it to complete. This lack of involvement in the gear change operation means it's inevitable that it will feel slower than it really is. Drive the car for a while and you simply don't notice it any more.
The same problem exists for most of the robotised manual transmissions, e.g. Fiat/Alfa Selespeed, Citroen Sensodrive/EGS, Toyota SMT (used in the Mk3 MR2) transmission have all been criticised for being slow, but they all change at about the same speed as the average person using a manual box.
What really messes things up on the Smart is if you decide to shift at the same time as the ECU does, i.e. if you are really pressing on and hit the red line the box will change up automatically, even in manual mode. If you decide to change up at the same time as the ECU you can end up changing up two gears and it takes ages. Again you quickly learn when to change to avoid this and it becomes second nature.
When you use a manual transmission you are busy doing stuff during the gear change, pressing the clutch down, maybe blipping the throttle on a down change if you are a half decent driver, shifting, releasing the clutch. The transmission on the Smart does all that for you at a similar speed and the driver does nothing but wait for it to complete. This lack of involvement in the gear change operation means it's inevitable that it will feel slower than it really is. Drive the car for a while and you simply don't notice it any more.
The same problem exists for most of the robotised manual transmissions, e.g. Fiat/Alfa Selespeed, Citroen Sensodrive/EGS, Toyota SMT (used in the Mk3 MR2) transmission have all been criticised for being slow, but they all change at about the same speed as the average person using a manual box.
What really messes things up on the Smart is if you decide to shift at the same time as the ECU does, i.e. if you are really pressing on and hit the red line the box will change up automatically, even in manual mode. If you decide to change up at the same time as the ECU you can end up changing up two gears and it takes ages. Again you quickly learn when to change to avoid this and it becomes second nature.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Friday 15th April 11:07
Mr2Mike said:
What really messes things up on the Smart is if you decide to shift at the same time as the ECU does, i.e. if you are really pressing on and hit the red line the box will change up automatically, even in manual mode. If you decide to change up at the same time as the ECU you can end up changing up two gears and it takes ages. Again you quickly learn when to change to avoid this and it becomes second nature.
That is the one thing I would have to agree is annoying about the Smart gearbox. Edited by Mr2Mike on Friday 15th April 11:07
Same coming down the box. If it decides to drop from 6th to 5th at the same time you do you end up in 4th. Not too much of an issue but can still be annoying.
The only time a Smart gearbox is significantly slower is in bulk changes - 6th to 2nd for example. But then thats not unusual for any sequential gearbox.
lostkiwi said:
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.
Under the heading "Production", 3rd paragraphSmart 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.
EnglishTony said:
lostkiwi said:
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.
Under the heading "Production", 3rd paragraphSmart 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.
C70R said:
Your "dim witted" point is perfect. I couldn't have described it better.
If I'm being honest, the manual mode was nowhere near as responsive as I would expect/hope from an automated manual -
Afraid I'm still not really getting the problem. As I've said, I've only driven one example, but I've driven it a lot. And because of comments on this forum and others, I've deliberately gone out and tested different scenarios. And all I can conclude is, it is mostly very responsive. There are odd occasions when it isn't. But as soon as you touch the lever it starts the gearchange process. i.e. it starts to respond within a fraction of a second.If I'm being honest, the manual mode was nowhere near as responsive as I would expect/hope from an automated manual -
I tested this for down shifts, my car doesn't have paddles, only the gear stick, and if you pull the stick back quickly, it'll start doing something way before the stick returns to centre. It was way too quick to time, but must have been 1/4 second or less.
Upshifts are similar, maybe slightly slower.
Once it starts doing something, you have to remember it is a manual box, do depress clutch, take it out of gear to neutral, select next gear, re-engage clutch. This all happens at about the same speed as an average good gear change by an average driver. There are occasions at particular speeds/revs that might cause it to be slower, but as a rule it's pretty consistent.
Even under normal driving. There is round about down the road from me, not big, not small. Going straight over it takes only a few seconds, you can easily get 3 gearshifts in in the Roadster (starting in 1st, leave the round about in 4th). In a manual car you'd probably only get in 2 shifts. But the fact you can get it from 1st to 4th going through 2nd and 3rd in a few seconds, simply says that is cannot be slow in changing gear, else this would be impossible.
Maybe my car was a freak, but I don't think so.
C70R said:
my CLK430 slushbox probably gets the job done as quickly, and it's not a patch on a decent manual.
Auto boxes don't use a clutch plate, they have a torque converter and while change gears way quicker than most people with a manual can.C70R said:
The early auto-upshift was absolutely baffling when pushing on, but I suppose that's a common complaint of auto boxes.
Are you still talking about the Roadster? You've said auto boxes, but the Roadster is a manual box with an automated clutch.It does even in manual mode auto shift up if you get to the red line. When it auto shifts it's a lot slower than manually provoking it. With a standard car you have to time your up shift just before the red line to avoid this. On my car I had the rpm limiter increased by 500rpm, which meant it was easy to take it to the red line and never induce the auto up shift.
So yes, the stock setup on auto upshift is rather pants. But easy to work around, you just shift 200rpm earlier than the red line. Which on a standard car will keep you in the power band better anyway.
C70R said:
Truthfully, even in manual I felt it was lacking something quite significant compared to the MX5 and MR2, but just my opinion.
When mine is back on the road again, you are more than welcome to come for a spin in it and see if those concerns still hold true. 
C70R said:
The early auto-upshift was absolutely baffling when pushing on, but I suppose that's a common complaint of auto boxes. Truthfully, even in manual I felt it was lacking something quite significant compared to the MX5 and MR2, but just my opinion.
That's an interesting point - but I think you might have it slightly confused on early-upshifting - I have noticed that auto mode decides to change gear depending on several factors, including if you are "pressing on" or not - if you are leisurely driving around town or in traffic you'll notice it changes a lot earlier and at lower revs. When you're using lots of throttle, it waits until it hits the red-line, and also changes down a lot earlier to give as much power on tap as possible.Speaking personally, I never use manual mode and leave it permanently in auto which seems to be really looked down on in Roady circles - mainly because I don't really see any benefit from choosing when to change gear over when the car does, and I couldn't be bothered with the occasions where you are "fighting" the box when it decides to change gear just as you do (or driving "around" the gearbox) - I just let it do it's thing. I can totally see how the gearbox is a deal-breaker for many, but for me it's not an issue.
I'd quite like a go in an MX5 now (especially after reading the test-drive review by Honeywell) even if it was just as a passenger, just to see how it compares. I've driven a Puma previously which I thought was awful and felt wallowy and slow even when going faster than I'd normally drive, so something low down like an MX5 might be a good place to start - it's all about fun at legal speeds.
Why is no one mentioning the too-slow steering rack, lifted straight out the other smarts (as per all the subassemblies)?
In my short ownership experience, I started to get used to the gearbox - in that I learnt to drive around it - but the one thing that really annoyed me was the amount of steering input required.
However, I did enjoy it's sense of "being different" - right down to the ignition key location...
In my short ownership experience, I started to get used to the gearbox - in that I learnt to drive around it - but the one thing that really annoyed me was the amount of steering input required.
However, I did enjoy it's sense of "being different" - right down to the ignition key location...
dxg said:
Why is no one mentioning the too-slow steering rack, lifted straight out the other smarts (as per all the subassemblies)?
but the one thing that really annoyed me was the amount of steering input required.
This is another thing I've never managed to fathom and occasionally comes up on forums.but the one thing that really annoyed me was the amount of steering input required.
To turn the car, you don't need to turn the wheel any further than any other car I've been in pretty much.I drive mostly with hands at a quarter to three grip. Apart from in a car park there is more than enough steering input for normal or speedy driving, just as with any other car. And less than most fwd hatches I've driven.
If the steering was any quicker it'd likely be horribly twitchy straight ahead anyhow.
And before you cite it, turns lock to lock has little to do with it, as it depends how far the wheels turn at full lock. If they turn more for a tighter lock, then even with the same ratio on the rack, you'll need more turns to go lock to lock.
You make it sound as though you have to dial in a several turns of steering lock, just to navigate normal roads.
300bhp/ton said:
Lots of replies.
I'm really not having a pop at it - just replaying observations from driving a weekend in one. I don't know why you feel the need to break down and refute everything based on your own experience, but I'm merely sharing my view.Your experience is clearly different, and you obviously love your car enough to overlook the shortcomings that blight it for many. I'm not here for a "What happened when you applied a quarter throttle at 20mph in 2nd?" argument - I didn't need to worry about any of that in a manual MX5 or MR2, which is ultimately what made them better driver's cars.
ETA - I've just spotted that this thread originated in 2013, and noticed your penchant for long-winded rebuttals/arguments. I think I'll call it a day.
M1C said:
The steering in the Smart Roadster does indeed need more 'turning' than most other cars, i reckon.
But i really dont want you to provide me with graphs and tables to show me how that isn't the case, so we must agree to disagree!
The standard geo is on the safer side. But this is true of many cars. As in the front will tend to wash away first. But it's not impossible to get the back to step out. Although doing either on the public roads is challenging assuming it's dry out.But i really dont want you to provide me with graphs and tables to show me how that isn't the case, so we must agree to disagree!
If you set them up differently you can give them more initial turn in. But none of this is related to people saying the steering is slow.
Best sports car ive ever owned. After several tvr's and a boxster,which were all great.I bought one. The roadster takes a bit to get the best of it. Its involving like a motorbike. You have to be in the right gear at all times if driving fast. Handles like its on rails. I always turn the traction control off, as it interupts the fun. A fantastic little car , but not easy to master. Worth the effort.
Robo101 said:
Best sports car ive ever owned. After several tvr's and a boxster,which were all great.I bought one. The roadster takes a bit to get the best of it. Its involving like a motorbike. You have to be in the right gear at all times if driving fast. Handles like its on rails. I always turn the traction control off, as it interupts the fun. A fantastic little car , but not easy to master. Worth the effort.
You can't turn the driver aids off, only down. As the chap that rolled his in the Lakes several years ago learned...Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff