Are the above all related? I think so. Looking at the ForTwo first, it’s unconventional in so many areas: very short, low capacity turbo engine in its rear, and an odd auto gearbox. And being so unconventional means it requires a unique platform (at massive cost). Let us look at each of these individually for cost and sales implication.

Size

The ForTwo biggest innovation is its small size. This is a city car and is sized accordingly. However its size not only restricts it to a niche market, it also steers the design towards a rear engine layout, both of which have implications for the handling, ride and roadholding. Even though allot of city cars have only one person in them, sales of city cars will tell you people like to have 4 seats, even if the rear seats are small and just for occasional use. The ForTwo need only be a little longer (maybe only 10 inches) to have some rear occasional seats, and those extra seats would open it to a much wider potential market.

WHAT where they thinking, sending a car onto the market with a gearbox like THAT?

Engine-Gearbox

This is by far the worst aspect of the ForTwo. If one of these was bad, it would be bad enough, but both are terrible. And together they are worse than their sum, because they compound each others worst aspects. Small capacity engines equal low power and no torque. To reduce these two negatives they turbocharged it. Why? Adding a turbo does add power and torque but only when the turbo is spinning; not low down in the rev range where its often needed. And it adds complication, significantly increases cost, and impacts engine efficiency resulting in higher fuel consumption. So to reduce the two negatives (only some of the time) of a low capacity engine, they have added several other negatives. Now let’s look at the standard auto gearbox; if you thought I was too scathing about the engine, please look away. WHAT where they thinking, sending a car onto the market with a gearbox like THAT? And don’t forget, we are talking about the DaimlerChrysler Benz group (Mercedes to you and me), with massive engineering talent and years of experience in cutting edge gearbox design. I don’t know much about the technical aspects of the gearbox but operationally it is an auto with a manual up/down shift option. Its great bugbear is the lag between gearshifts (admittedly this is improved in recent incarnations). This means when accelerating and changing gear, you spend so long coasting in neutral that by the time the next gear is engaged you’ve lost some of your speed. This would be annoying enough, but –and this is the killer- when after what seems like a lifetime the gear finally does engage, your going too slow for the turbo to be on full boost. So you get bogged down. If you’re going up a hill at the time, you will have to change down again to get back into boost! The only way to avoid the worst of this situation is to manually change –its still a slow shift but then you stay screaming in lower gear if you can see a hill approaching. What’s wrong with fitting a conventional gearbox? Or even a good CVT? And why not overcome the low torque and low power of a small capacity engine, by replacing it with a larger capacity engine?

Questions

Why did VW pull out of partnership with Smart partly through the FourTwo’s development? Did Daimler management not ask that question? VW realised that the proposed car would be too niche based and production costs would be too high to realise a profit. They did well to write off their investment. Smart has been losing money from day one, and now Mercedes-Daimler are getting sick of picking up the tab.

after what seems like a lifetime the gear finally does engage, your going too slow for the turbo to be on full boost

Why have other small-car manufacturers not produced a car similar to the ForTwo? Why have they not built a small capacity turbo engine for Europe? The Japanese manufactures who do make such engines for K-class cars which are thus restricted by domestic legislation, rarely market them in Europe. Why? The reason has to be that their experience in the small car sector tells them such a car wouldn’t be profitable. And it isn’t. If Honda were to build a small city car for Europe, what would it be like? It would be bigger than the ForTwo and it would have some rear seats to appeal to a broader section of the market. It would also be front engined and front wheel drive. This move would help them use a modified existing platform, cutting costs dramatically. A conventional 4 pot engine of around 1.2 litres mated to a normal manual gearbox, and possibly their excellent CVT from the Jazz. This wouldn’t by much bigger physically than the Smart 600cc turbo engine, but cheaper to develop, build and run. In short, the car would be a shorter smaller version of the Honda Jazz. It would be profitable because its costs were kept down by using conventional bits and by appealing to a much wider market because of its slightly larger size. Yes, it would be conventional, but generally the way to make money is to stay close to convention. I’m presuming that profitability is an objective?

Other Smarts

Other Smarts are much better driving propositions. The Smart Coupe being lower and longer is a good drive. It’s still let down by its engine and gearbox but to a much smaller extent than the ForTwo. Despite this being a better car, its being axed by a desperate Daimler eager to stem the losses and bring some profitability. It looks like the high build costs and disappointing sales are killing it, but could these things not have been foreseen? Is it a coincidence that this also has a small capacity turbo engine and an unconventional auto gearbox? And a little too small and quirky to be in the more profitable MR2-MX5 market segment. The ForFour is the most conventional Smart and looks like the only Smart which is profitable. But I can’t see that being much of a success. It’s a dressed up Mitsubishi Colt with a few thousands added to the price. The buying public are more discerning on value.

Unique, conventional or innovative?

..generally the way to make money is to stay close to convention. I’m presuming that profitability is an objective?

I am not a lover of conventional; I like quirky, unique and interesting cars. This statement may seem like a big contradiction to the above article but I’ll explain. If conventional is better, then that is the route which should be followed. If an innovation will improve the car but is likely to make the car unprofitable, then I think it should be left behind in the labs until it is developed further to make it cost effective. NSU may still be around if it had developed the Wankel engine until it was cost effective. You can have little innovations, many of them together would make the car slightly unconventional, interesting, and better but still profitable. The Honda Jazz has innovative rear seats, iDSI engine (very compact and efficient), CVT gearbox and built-in-quality. Each of these innovations make the car better but don’t add to the build costs. So despite building the car in Japan with its high labour rates, Honda is massively profitable. And that profit can be used to develop other innovations which add value like sublime iVTEC engines.

Return to Amistad Home.

This article is sponsored by Proqul Ozone store who supply the Ozonology Sanitisation service.

Other aarticles you may enjoy.
About Cars:
Honda Accord 2008 is no looker, W124 E-class is still the best Mercedes, Takeover of Land Rover & Jaguar, Jaguar for sale, Mercedes and Chrysler divorce, Ebay addiction, can I make a profit?, My list of most beautiful cars, Volvo's not-so-floating console, Why rare cars or exclusive cars will lose you money, Honda FRV review, Toyota IQ to help Mercedes' profits, Ferrari F599: Motoring Porn, Peugeot enter the SUV market, Honda Jazz report, Eulogy for Rover SD1, BMW 535D is a colossus, Honda Fit in the USA, Ford Focus is the perfect second hand car, The Honda Legend returns, C6: the new DS, Is Audi going RWD?, The smarter Smart, What happened to the promise of active suspension, Honda Civic ishift.

About life:
Climate change is a natural phenomena, Green tax or just plain tax?, Was passing the EU budget good for Britain? I think not.