Talk:Smart Fortwo

message: Please do not put The Da Vinci Code (film) as product placement.  The smart was first in the book and the movie followed it. Reywas92 20:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Why not?  The car received lots of publicity by being in the film (and to a lesser extent, the book).  That's no different from the other movies on the list.  If anything, it should go back in. --Vossanova o< 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the Steve Martin version of The Pink Panther also, should we include that? :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The appearance of the car in the movie might be surprising for US viewers, but in Europe, where the story takes place, the Smart fortwo ist an absolute usual vehicle, just like a Honda Civic in the US. The movie was made in 2006, while the smart car has been introduced in Europe in 1998. Also, the model that is shown in the Movie has been replaced by the second generation model just four months after the movie was released, so I guess it would have been a little late for product placement?   --Nik222 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Da Vinci Code

message: The third paragraph in this section is POV.  It needs to be revised to be neutral, or else removed. --Vossanova o< 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United States

message: "In September, 2005, Smart President Ulrich Walker announced that a decision on entry of the Smart into the US market would be made before the end of 2005." - This is old information, and should be deleted.
: Done.  --Vossanova o< 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old information

message: I have removed links to discussion forms:
*This is a forum.
*The quality of the forum cannot be assessed without joining the group
*The forum is not a unique resource to the topic and by it's name is dedicated to a sub-topic of the article at hand.
*Is being promoted by a member or moderator of the forum in violation of WP:SPAM.
I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Any reason why the picture was changed? 24.5.93.146 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: Seriously, i can't imagine why someone thinks that the smart fortwo has a MR layout. Before changing that let's discuss this here.
:Because the engine is forwards of the rear wheels, but behind the front ones? That's all that's required for MR status as far as I'm aware. True RR cars like the Beetle, Fiat 500, Porsche etc tend to have the weight of the engine over or even behind the rear axle. I'd like to see you argue for this being the case on the Smart, as the rear wheels are so far back as to be nearly outboard of the main body. The Roadster, which is pretty much built on the same chassis, is DEFINITELY mid-engined... the thing's visible as a lump under the luggage shelf! There are some cars that are arguably MF / M4 (with the engine in front of the driver, but behind the front axle - not a normal arrangement!) for this reason ... as soon as I see the appropriate Top Gear episode again where such a car is tested (noted as improving otherwise potentially understeer-heavy handling... the Quattro or Evo I think?) I'll come back with an example name :)
:The layout is very similar to the Mitsubishi i, that crams 4 seats into almost as small a wheelbase. Take a look at the profiles of the two cars, and the cutaway diagram at the top of the MR article itself for clues. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it uses half shafts. In car with half shaft the axle line is imaginary and crosses the car at the center of the rear wheels. Rabbitbunny (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are being that picky, half-shafts are the shafts carried within a live axle casing on each side of the differential unit. What you are looking at on a Smart are drive shafts. And yes it is MR, the engine and gearbox sits ahead of the rear axle line, obviously you don't include the differential structure as part of the powertrain for this assessment or there would be no such thing as an MR.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.244.202 (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RR Layout

message: Could people add sources for the information they've added to this page? For example, this would enable us to find out (and add to the article) whether the mpg used is US or British. Skittle 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: As the engine is rear-mounted, I question whether this vehicle is rear wheel, front-wheel or all-wheel drive. I can't see it mentioned anywhere.
trezjr (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rear wheel drive, what did you expect/think? 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't know just based on engine placement. Theres been front engine, rear wheel, and reverse. 69.115.70.122 (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive 

message: This page says:
:" The City Coupe had stability problems that were discovered only immediately prior to launch. These forced a package of alterations to be made that were both expensive and compromised the car’s handling, ride and gear shift."
If true, I'd like to see it confirmed & included. I'd especially like to know which moron let the car go thru design, development, & preproduction testing without discovering this.  Trekphiler (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably, IIRC, similar issues suffered by the same-stable Mercedes A-class... both cars with comparitively narrow track and short wheelbases for their tall bodies and suffering handling and stability problems, particularly in violent maneouvres. In both cases it IS bizarre that models that are somewhat premium items, and would usually be expected to be sold partly on the basis of safety, would make it to market before the problem was discovered. Perhaps someone in the Mercedes technical department thought that these city / small family cars didn't need the same kind of testing for response in challenging open-road situations for some reason? Possibly this was even a standard omission from the testing of this class of vehicles (usually quite well planted due to being relatively low to the ground) and no-one had put any thought into the implications of the at-the-time unusually high bodies. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Bates, your car is ready

message: I saw my first one the other day, in Walnut Creek, CA. I was surprised how high (and wide) it was. It was, of course, very short. Are the cars being distributed nationwide, or only in selected areas? 76.21.8.213 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they on the road yet in the U.S.? 

message: Is it true that the car shifts to first gear automatically when stopping at traffic lights? 88.193.206.74 (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First gear? 

message: "Though innovative and efficient (sic)".  The author cites a wikipedia article (smart roadster) which does not discuss the safety of the Smart Fortwo at all (none that i could see at least).  Would somebody please add a source to back those statements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandor (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Smart Fortwo performs well in federal crash test () despite some safety concerns due to the driver door opened during the side test.--Mandor (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, silly me ! Smart (automobile).  All right, I think this statement: "The Smart Fortwo is considered to be one of the most dangerous cars on the road today, despite the popular belief that they are "safe and reliable," which is noted on a number of popular crash test rating websites" is out of place for a car that performed well during the federal crash test.  Although I find nothing concerning the "(sic) shaky handling and an unreliable break system (sic)".  I will keep looking.--Mandor (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not forget .--Mandor (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Take a look at the Tango. From Commuter Cars' website (commutercars.com) "The Tango's racecar-style roll cage design, its 4-point harnesses, its low center of gravity, and a weight comparable to a midsize sedan combine to make the Tango extremely safe." And, "We have designed the Tango around a roll cage that meets or exceeds both SCCA and NHRA regulations." Londonbrig0 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Probably best if you leave safety assessment to the experts then. I was amused to note that despite being half the size of my car, it was only one point behind (28 vs 29) in the euroncap tests linked by Mandor above. And that's despite not having a side-airbag (which is an option, but is standard on mine). Also has much better pedestrian protection than mine (which does not affect us selfish drivers, but sure as hell affects our, and everybody else's, kids). This idea that a small cars 'obviously' cannot be safe does not seem to be borne out in the real world. EasyTarget (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety 

message: I've noticed that in all the literature from smart, the car name is not capitalized -fortwo instead of Fortwo. We should do the same here. --Trödel 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what should be done, but Wikipedia needs to be consistent. I can find "ForTwo," "Fortwo," and "fortwo" at various places in the article. One style should be used throughout, unless directly quoting from a source that uses another. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name - fortwo instead of Fortwo 

message: Why are there two pictures of "Plastibell Circumcision Device" in this section??? 90.184.244.249 (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.4 Hybrid Section - Wrong pictures??? 

message: Point 2.2 of the Article ("Models") is wrong: There have never been removable targa-style roof panels! Both generations of the Smart fortwo have either a solid black plastic roof or a panorama roof made of glass. The convertible version was introduced in Europe in 2000 an has an electric soft top with (manually) removable side roof bars. Could please someone change this part of the article? I would do it by myselt, but my English is not that perfect. --Nik222 (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Models - Roof versions 

message: I think we should merge the article "Smart ED" to Smart Fortwo article,because I think the ED is same as the Fortwo,only some minor change have been made.
BBG Wiki (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smart ED 

message: Can anybody confirm definitely that a later special edition called the Limited 1 did actually exist as mentioned in the article?
I am only familiar with the original Limited 1 launched in 1998.
Seems odd that smart would use the same name again  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Island Roamer (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited 1 

message: The photo of the 2nd generation ForTwo shows a pink car, a color which has never been sold from the factory. It seems more intended for ridicule than as an accurate representation of a Smart ForTwo that one would find at a dealership.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson23 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink photo? 

message: There are several very thinly sourced sections in the article.  The Models section is completely without any sources that would support the section -- it appears to be completely original research. 842U (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole sections without citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Smart Fortwo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101228054019/http://www.houndgear.org:80/category/smart/ to http://www.houndgear.org/category/smart/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Smart Fortwo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306220602/http://www.cardesignnews.com/site/home/auto_shows/view_related_story/store4/item68344/ to http://www.cardesignnews.com/site/home/auto_shows/view_related_story/store4/item68344/
*Added  tag to http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1710700-1-1710707-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-7163-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.htmll
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140928174259/http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/2015-smart-fortwo-revealed/1303531 to http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/2015-smart-fortwo-revealed/1303531
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does it deserve it's own page or should we merge into this?? -- - - - -T e r g y  t h e  u s e r- - - - 15:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Smart CROSSBLADE