The stock transmissions shift like a bag of crap, there is probably a solid 1 second delay between shifts.
No kidding. I test drove a Zap "federalized" version and I was not impressed one bit by it.
Cheap plastic everywhere.
VERY slow (Slower than a stock MB 300D).
Horrible transmission.
Not at all efficient for its size, weight and engine displacement..
Not safe to drive because of all the pickups/SUVs running around.
Not fun to drive.
Embarrassing/homosexual to be seen in one.
EXTREMELY over hyped.
The Zap converted one I test drove a few years ago was also for sale. It was a midrange model demo vehicle with 800 miles. They wanted, get this,
$30,000 for it! :shock:
There is no way anyone should willingly pay more than $10,000 for one of those sacks of sh!t with wheels.
The upcoming americanized (porked out) version is even worse. Mitsubishi 1.0L non-turbo engine, bigger dimensions, heavier, slower, and even lower economy. The only saving grace of the ForTwo was it's turbocharged Mercedes engine. With that out of the picture its a complete piece of junk.
The Smart ForTwo's big selling point is going to be fuel economy. For the current version, the company estimates a combined city/highway fuel mileage of about 40 miles per gallon
Think about it, 40mpg in a vehicle that small is terrible. The 2007 Toyota Corolla gets 32/40mpg and the 2007 Honda Civic with a 1.3L gets 49/51mpg. Hell, a Mercedes 240D can get 32mpg in a vehicle
5 times the ForTwo's weight!
I just don't understand it. A vehicle that small, light and weak should be getting 60-80mpg at the least. What makes it so inefficient that 40mpg is all it can do?