RE: Smart Roadster: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Get the best deal for Other Car Parking Assistance Devices for Smart Roadster from the largest online selection at eBay.com. Browse your favorite brands affordable prices free shipping on many items.
Thursday 14th April 2016
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. (And a large group who say they hated the box and it ruined the car for them - and have been written off as lacking the skill to use it...)
Exactly!Thursday 14th April 2016
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.
Thursday 14th April 2016
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. 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.Thursday 14th April 2016
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.
Thursday 14th April 2016
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. 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:
Advertisement
Friday 15th April 2016
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.
Friday 15th April 2016
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. 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.
Friday 15th April 2016
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.
Friday 15th April 2016
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 paragraphNope - third paragraph doesn't use the word 'production'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.
Friday 15th April 2016
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.
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. 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.
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. Friday 15th April 2016
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.
Friday 15th April 2016
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...
Friday 15th April 2016
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.
Friday 15th April 2016
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.
Friday 15th April 2016
This is another thing I've never managed to fathom and occasionally comes up on forums.
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.
To be fair your car history doesn't really give you much to go on in regards to comparing steering feel (or but it another way, you like a certain kind of feel), so you might just have to concede that others might be right on that point.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.
Friday 15th April 2016
To be fair your car history doesn't really give you much to go on in regards to comparing steering feel (or but it another way, you like a certain kind of feel), so you might just have to concede that others might be right on that point.
I don't need to concede anything, the statement is slow steering, not how it feels. So it's objective, not subjective.What sort of car history would I need to be able in your eyes to make a claim or have an opinion on the speed of the steering?
Friday 15th April 2016
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!
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!
Friday 15th April 2016
I don't need to concede anything, the statement is slow steering, not how it feels. So it's objective, not subjective.
What sort of car history would I need to be able in your eyes to make a claim or have an opinion on the speed of the steering?
OK speed of the steering then (although it's related to feel IMO, but yes you can have slower steering and still have good feel). I was just saying that if someone generally enjoys cars with a more 'relaxed' steering input (like Audi owners for example), then you're going to be of the opinion that another make with the same kind of steering input is good.What sort of car history would I need to be able in your eyes to make a claim or have an opinion on the speed of the steering?
If I drove Caterhams all the time I'd declare any other car on the road as wallowy uncommunicative ste
Friday 15th April 2016
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.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff
Smart Roadster | |
---|---|
Overview | |
Manufacturer | Smart GmbH |
Production | 2003–2006 |
Body and chassis | |
Class | Sports car Roadster S-segment |
Body style | 2-door roadster |
Layout | Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive |
Related | Smart Fortwo |
Powertrain | |
Engine | 0.7 L M160I3turbo (petrol) |
Transmission | 6-speed semi-automatic transmission |
Dimensions | |
Wheelbase | 2,360 mm (93 in) |
Length | 3,427 mm (134.9 in) |
Width | 1,656 mm (65.2 in) |
Height | 1,192 mm (46.9 in) |
Curb weight |
|
The Smart Roadster (W452) is a two-door, two-seater sports car (S-segment in Europe) first introduced in 2003 by Smart GmbH. Sales of the Roadster and Roadster Coupé met expectations, however, warranty claims resulted in a halt of production of both models in November 2005 after 43,091 Roadsters were made. The last one built now resides in the Mercedes-Benz Museum.
- 1History
History[edit]
At the 1998 Paris Motor Show, the two-seat, 2.5 m (98 in)-long Smart City Coupe (later named Smart Fortwo) was launched. This was the beginning of a new car brand and one of the more radical vehicle concepts to hit the European market since the bubble cars of the 1950s. It was also the beginning of a difficult period for Smart. 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. Public concerns over the car's stability, combined with Smart's elitist marketing and the sheer radicality of the car's design, proved damaging to initial sales. Production projections were slashed from 200,000 per year to 80,000, close to disastrous for a new brand with just one product.
Inside the company, the evangelical buzz surrounding the launch of the radical City Coupe quickly evaporated. With new management, new marketing initiatives and continuing revisions to the car's engineering to answer public concerns, future vehicle plans, including development of a four-seat model, had not been far advanced.
Design and development[edit]
Roadster rear
Under design director Jens Manske in autumn 1998, Smart's 14 person design and engineering team began to sketch possible future Smart cars. They soon realised that the powertrain of the City Coupe was ideal for a small sports car, with a compact turbo engine driving the rear wheels via a sequential 6 speed gearbox.
Following Smart's ‘reduce to the max’ philosophy and general innovative approach, a concept for a super compact, practical and pure sports car was generated.Two quarter-scale exterior and two quarter-scale interior models were made in February 1999 with Volker Leutz's exterior and Christoph Machinek's interior proposals selected for development into full-size development models.The design of the car had progressed considerably by the time Michael Mauer officially arrived from Mercedes-Benz's Japan design center to take over Menske's position in May 1999. Mauer worked closely with the design team to quickly develop the roadster, with the intention now of producing a show car for the upcoming 1999 IAA motor show in Frankfurt.
By June the full size models of the roadster were handed over to Stola in Italy for production of the show car model, which was produced in about three months for the car's debut at the Frankfurt show.The Roadster concept was well received at Frankfurt and helped to convince management that the car should be developed for production. At the same time a decision was made to develop Mauer's idea for a coupe version as a concept car for Paris motor show a year later.As development of the coupe concept began, so the roadster show car was developed over the following year with both exterior and interior designs completed by November 2000. However, colour and trim design continued until a year later.
By early 2000 the Smart City Coupe had finally started to gain sales momentum, with its cabrio version making a significant addition to total Smart sales. In March Mauer left Smart for Saab, succeeded by Hartmut Sinkwitz in May. As the third design director of Smart during the Roadster's development, Sinkwitz had to bring the concept to production in a very short time. This task may have been made somewhat easier by the Roadster having been designed from the start to use existing powertrain and other City Coupe components. Given some of the advanced design features, it is a credit to the design team that so much of the concept car made it to production.
Concept car[edit]
The ‘Roadster Coupe’ as shown at the 2000 Paris Motor Show was already on its way to production form. It shared the design of the Roadster from the doors forward, but had a glass targa roof and rear structure resembling a small shooting-brake in the same way as the BMW Z3 coupe and the Saab 9X concept car developed under Mauer at Saab a few years later.
Production versions of both Roadster and Roadster Coupe debuted together at the 2002 Paris Motor Show and were available to buy within a few months. Both cars were unique in the market, being significantly smaller than the Toyota MR2, MG TF, Fiat Barchetta and Mazda MX-5, but offering similar performance and practicality to the base versions of these cars while being significantly more fuel efficient.
Production[edit]
Interior Smart Roadster.
A Smart Roadster Coupé convertible.
The Smart Roadster and Roadster Coupé were introduced in 2003, based on a stretched platform of the Fortwo with a full length of 3427 mm. The two variants are meant to be reminiscent of the British roadster of yore, such as the Triumph Spitfire or the MG B. Both the Roadster and Roadster Coupé are available with a removable Targa roof or an electrical softtop. The Roadster is powered by 45 or 60 kW (61 or 82 PS) versions of the turbocharged 698cc 3-cylinder Suprex engine in the rear, which is engineered by Mercedes-Benz. The Roadster Coupé has only the more powerful 60 kW (82 PS; 80 hp) engine. A steering wheel with Formula 1-style gearpaddles, to control the semi-automatic sequential transmission, is optional. Weighing as little as 790 kg (1,742 lb), the Roadster is intended to provide the emotion of driving a sports car at an affordable cost.
Both the Roadster and Roadster Coupé are available in Brabus-tuned versions with power increased to 74 kW (101 PS; 99 hp). The Brabus versions have a different twin sports exhaust, lower suspension, polished six-spoke aluminum alloy Monoblock VI 17' wheels (205/40 ZR17 at the front and 225/35 ZR17 at the rear), front spoiler, side skirts and radiator grille. Exclusive Brabus (Xclusive) interior includes leather trimmed dashboard, alloy-effect accent parts, instrument graphics, leather/aluminium gearknob with Brabus labelled starter button, aluminium handbrake handle (which fouls the central armrest), aluminium pedals and Brabus labeled floor mats. The Brabus version also features stronger clamping of the clutch plates and a faster gearchange. The Monoblock wheels are known to be very soft and as a result are very easy to buckle. The lacquer on these wheels is also very poor, and corrosion can occur very early in the life of the wheel.
Despite a projected break even of only 8-10,000 units per year, first year sales almost doubled this estimate. However, some Smart Roadsters leaked and production ceased due to the warranty work and other costs reaching an average of €3000 per vehicle. While a critical success, the Smart Roadster was, due to these costs, an economic failure for the company. Influential British motoring television show and magazine Top Gear praised the Roadster, awarding it Fun Car Of The Year for 2005.
43,091 Roadsters were built and put on the shop fronts, with chassis numbers ranging from 00,001 to around 43,400.
Brabus V6 Bi-Turbo prototypes[edit]
Smart Roadster Coupe Brabus.
Brabus Coupe, rear
In 2003, German tuninghouseBrabus created a prototype version of the Roadster Coupé with two merged 3-cylinder engines to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Solituderennen. This V6 bi-turbo powerplant had a maximum power of 160 kW (218 PS; 215 hp) for a weight of only 840 kg (1,852 lb), giving it the same power-to-weight ratio as a Porsche 911 Carrera 4S. Smart claimed the car could accelerate to 100 km/h (62 mph) in under five seconds.
Since the twin-turboV6 engine occupies almost twice as much space as their 3-cylinder engines, the fuel tank had to be relocated to the nose of the car, where a luggage compartment used to be. It comes in the form of a Formula 1-type foamrubber fuel bladder. The bigger engine also forced a change from separate coil springs and dampers to concentric units to support the de Dion rear suspension.
Ten cars were built and presented at the Castle Solitude. They are not available for sale and are not even allowed to be driven on public roads in Germany. Some of Mercedes' race drivers, like Markus Winkelhock, drove guests around the event's race track.
Special editions[edit]
Smart Roadster Collector's Edition.
Smart Roadster Collector's Edition.
In March 2006 Smart unveiled the final variant of the Roadster at the Geneva Motor Show: a limited collector's edition.
It was based on the top model Brabus Xclusive with 101 PS (74 kW; 100 hp) and came with a satin brown-metallic paint job. The interior had brown leather and higher quality materials were used extensively.It had the new Runline aluminium wheels and Brabus exhaust, front spoiler and side fenders.Of 50 planned cars only 30 were made.[citation needed]
A limited edition Roadster Coupe Racing edition (RCR) was released in 2005 in the UK. Only 50 in the world were made and featured all the Brabus trimmings plus special black Alcantara and leather seats with red diamond pattern stitching. The seats were not heated as they are in the main Brabus model. The black Alcantara and red stitching also featured on the dash and door panels. Interior door handles and clock surrounds were finished in red to match the exterior paintwork. Each comes with a numbered plaque on the glovebox - stating the build number - RCR UK #/50. These cars were finished in Ferrari Red with matching light surrounds and bumper sections, the tridion safety cell being all silver. They were made to look like the V6 bi turbo and came with a free optional SB2 power upgrade kit for the engine, which raised the standard 80 bhp (60 kW) to 90 bhp (67 kW). The reason they were not fitted with the 101 PS (74 kW; 100 hp) engine is that the cars came off the production line in 2004 as normal 80 PS (59 kW; 79 hp) engined roadsters before being given the Brabus makeover. The SB2 upgrade was optional to allow customers the option for lower insurance and road tax/CO2 emissions. So some RCRs did not have the SB2 upgrade carried out when new. There were 50 right-hand drive cars (RCR 90) built especially for the UK with the SB2 kit and 90 hp (67 kW). Additionally BRABUS built 7 left-handed cars (RCR 90) for the rest of Europe and only 12 cars of the RCR 101 were altogether built left-handed by BRABUS with the real BRABUS 101 HP engine. One prototype and 11 numbered cars.
An additional, UK and Sweden-only 'Finale Edition' was unveiled in April 2006. This model came in a variety of colour combinations, including an exclusive speed silver and black tridion with 17-inch Runline alloys and 'flow silver' interior components. It also featured leather door and cockpit trim and a central arm rest.
Project Kimber[edit]
In 2006, David James initiated Project Kimber, an attempt to restart production of the Smart Roadster in the United Kingdom. Initially intended to be rebadged as an MG model,[1] after an unsuccessful bid for the MG marque, the revised Roadster was later referred to as the AC Ace.[2] However, as of 2013, the project appears to be dormant.[citation needed]
Knight and Day[edit]
In the 2010 movie Knight and Day, the Smart Roadster appears in the final chase scene. These vehicles were retrofitted with an engine from a Suzuki GSX-R motorcycle to improve power and throttle response, which was accomplished with a kit made by British company 'Smartuki'. Three of the cars were bike powered, and three more had conventionally tuned 698 cc 3 cylinder engines featuring ECU remap, cold air intake/filter, performance exhaust, stiffer engine mounts, improved brakes, and lowered suspension by a Smart specialist in Hampshire England.
References[edit]
- ^John Simpson, Greg Hurst December 3, 2011 12:01AM. 'Nanjing in talks to sell MG Rover brand to bid rival'. Business.timesonline.co.uk. Retrieved 2011-12-03.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^'AC Ace'. Carmagazine.co.uk. 2006-12-15. Retrieved 2011-12-03.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Smart Roadster. |
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_Roadster&oldid=890337075'