faults .

[oldgit]

my friend has just bought a new type fortwo & it has got 9 faults already , he has to take it back to be sorted out ..

[Mad smart person]

Greetings, it's my opinion that there's another fault that'll never be recorded, the fact the 'new' Smarts, just like most Japanese cars, no longer looks SMART. At least when the Smart came out it was a thing that people hadn't seen before, a shape that was different and in fact, other car manufactures tried to copy. Now Merc are trying to 'hide' the car by making it look like others. Not what Swatch had in mind at all. They designed at least, a car that stood out like dogs nuts in the hot days sun - sorry you don't see that. Still I guess we're not allowed to live in the past, Merc must move on? I recon it's up to BMW to reinvent the latest modern 'Bubble' car, in the form of the Isetta. Merc have tried to copy the Mini or Fiat shape, after they'd reinvented the 'bubble' with the Smart 42. Cheers.

[cougar7609]

I totally agree Mad!

[Thrumbleux]

I recon it's up to BMW to reinvent the latest modern 'Bubble' car, in the form of the Isetta..

It would be ironic if they as owners of Mini did as the original Mini was a result of Issogonis' hatred of bubble cars. You are right though, BMW could go smaller still with an Isetta branded car if they wanted to.
One thing about BMW is that they are superb at 'managing' brands. They would not have made the hash of smart that MB has.And through their motorcycle experience they know how to do small engines which is more than can be said for MB. A BMW built 3-cylinder unit in the back of a fortwo? Hmmm... I'll bet they would have done a Roadster too - a glaring omission and oversight by MB not to.

[Mad smart person]

Greetings, yes, the Bubble car was over taken and displaced by the (proper) Mini, Fiat 500 & Hillman Imp. Sadly, most BMW drivers don't understand that without the Isetta, BMW would have gone the way of the doe-doe. The Isetta is a brilliant design for the time. Yes BMW, along with Merc and RR made engines for Aircraft. RR engines were made to last forever. Merc engines were made to last 100 flight hours, about 4 times the life of the airframe. Don't know the design life of the BMW aero engines. The Isetta was powered by a modified single banger from the R26. Sadly for BMW, the engine in the bike lasted well but in the Isetta, its life was about 20,000 miles. The reason for this was the fact that unlike VW, BMW liked to bolt the head to the barrel and then the barrel to the crankcase which turned the barrel into a spring. VW used studs to bolt the head to the crankcase, making the barrel a non-structural part. The Isetta barrels cracked at the thinnest part of the barrel, which was at the flange that connected to the crankcase. So, hopefully BMW have learned how to design high power & high efficiency engines? Lets face it, the little cars aren't supposed to last long - proof lies in the paint Merc used on the subframes. Sadly, people that know nothing of Smarts, think that because they're small they're slow. I do like proving that one of those thoughts is not true. There must be a reason why an Isetta in good, MOT'd condition sells for more than 9000 quid. For that sort of dosh people with far more modern motors are scratching their heads!!! BMW's Mini, is the first front wheel drive BMW ever made and they own the name Rolls Royce. VW, at least own Bentley but sadly they couldn't see the future in small cars, the Lupo is their answer to Swatch's request for a 'strange and unusual'; little car. Just food for thought. Cheers, Me.

[lalli_d1]

you guy do realise that the first batch of new car (ANY new model) that comes on to the market is going to have teething problem. Jaguars XE was on hold for a few months before dealers were aloud to register and release them to the customers to iron out any problems that Jaguar were aware of at the time.

[Mad smart person]

Greetings, i do like your choice of words, "teething problem", that's 'problem', singular. Me tinks there'll be more than one problem and in fact probably more problems than we as humans, have fingers and toe's to count the problems on. The first problem for me is, they're only smart's by name now, not by nature. In a car park they'll blend in quite well. Where as with a proper Smart, at least you can see where it is or by stealth - where it should be. See, I'm one of those that park at the back of the space, so as people drive round looking for a space, they see what they think is an empty space, just to find a Smart already there. Happy Smarting. Cheers, Ian.

[Thrumbleux]

The reason for this was the fact that unlike VW, BMW liked to bolt the head to the barrel and then the barrel to the crankcase which turned the barrel into a spring. VW used studs to bolt the head to the crankcase, making the barrel a non-structural part. The Isetta barrels cracked at the thinnest part of the barrel, which was at the flange that connected to the crankcase. .

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that method (employed on most 2-strokes for the previous three decades at least) so BMW clearly executed the design badly. Most likely is that they started from an inherited engine as the base and tried to enlarge it further than there was metal to provide support.

[Mad smart person]

Greetings, no BMW didn't really inherit the Isetta engine, the engine that it had, X Iso, was a 2/ but BMW biffed that in favour of their own 4/ engine. This engine worked fine on the R26 motor cycle but the extra weight of the isetta meant they needed to increase the cc to 295. Then there was the problem of the people that worked on the Isetta in service. Some of them, just as with the Smart's, believed they knew what they were doing, hence the cars stopped, for a bevvy of reasons. Sadly, with all designs, when you're designing for weight, size, cost & efficiency there's 'strength' that usually goes west, hence things break, just because they're not strong enough not because they've been miss treated. Then again, look at the good old RR, no need to save anything on any of those design idea's / restrictions! Cars that weighed 3 tons, money no object AND they still 'failed to proceed'. Food for thought?? Cheers, Ian.

[Thrumbleux]

you guy do realise that the first batch of new car (ANY new model) that comes on to the market is going to have teething problem. Jaguars XE was on hold for a few months before dealers were aloud to register and release them to the customers to iron out any problems that Jaguar were aware of at the time.

That's the difference though Lalli. Jaguar held the cars back, smart have released them. Leaving the public to do the final part of product development has never worked well for those who did it.

[lalli_d1]

Jaguar have held cars back BUT there will still be problems which Jaguar didnt foresee, same in this case. Smart have tested the cars before them being released BUT there will be problems which Smart didnt see coming.

and i did also say; to iron out any problems that Jaguar were aware of at the time

you will never get a new car to be perfect straight of the production line

[10:45PM]

I'll let you know , when mine arrives in the next 6 weeks

[mccsmart2002]

Just think back to the release of the 450 1st generation city-coupé in 1998 (which was due to go on sale in 1997), then RHD models came along in 2001, then again for the 451 2nd generation in 2007, once again when the mhd stop/start became standard, then when the 54bhp cdi became available. All had its fair share of issues.

As an early adopter you just have to accept that there may be teething problems - regardless of brand. "Never buy version 1.0." so they say.

Let's hope no-one ends up getting the Friday afternoon lemon.

[lalli_d1]

thank you mccsmart. i hate it when owners start slating the new models when they have JUST come on to the market and they start going faulty.

[ColSmart]

The main problem so far, is that there is very little space to the left of the clutch pedal for resting your left foot on the UK model.

If you have size 10 shoes or greater then you have no where to place your left foot except under the clutch pedal. So its a case of lifting your foot off and under, (not my favorite way of driving a manual)

This is not the case with the LHD model as there is even a foot rest built in for your left foot, as there is far more space, as central console is not in the way.

So far I have driven the lava orange model which to me is not the best colour, but did see a parked silver one yesterday which was better looking. Getting used now to the longer Toyota IQ type bonnet.

Have been told that red will be introduced, and brown dumped (who would pick brown?), when the convertible Fortwo comes out early next year. I am waiting to see this model before considering to buy.

[Ocracoke]

Have been told that red will be introduced, and brown dumped (who would pick brown?)

A chocolate lover? To be honest, a brown car with a silver Tridion looks the part (subjectively of course).

I saw an all silver ForFour Series II the other day and that was depressing. I know Silver/Silver is a colour combination on all the previous models but in those instances, the silvers were different. On the W453 I saw, it was... bland.

The main problem so far, is that there is very little space to the left of the clutch pedal for resting your left foot on the UK model.

And the rest - the fuse box isn't that accessible either.

That's the difference though Lalli. Jaguar held the cars back, smart have released them. Leaving the public to do the final part of product development has never worked well for those who did it.

Smart have always appeared to be lacking in Product Testing, haven't they? Then again, how much pressure are they under to get the model(s) out of the door? I know that things need to be tested (my professional live regularly involves fault diagnostics for software) but a 1.0 release of anything is the people making it saying "it satisfies our testing". A 1.1, 1.2 release of the same thing is them saying "Ok, we fixed the faults that you reported to us etc etc".

In an ideal world, 1.0 is going to be the thing that works out of the box but the fact is that early adopters are always going to find faults. The crux is wherever or not the company's testing prior to 1.0 had enough coverage and depth.