While Daimler no longer owns Dodge Ram, I guess they want to get back in to the profitable pickup market in their own way.

"The clown car car division of Daimler is unveiling a pickup concept at the Detroit Auto Show. Why?"
-Autoextremist.com

Smart to Reveal Pickup Concept at Detroit Show - MSN Autos

Forget the usual Japan-bashing on this site and the Ridgeline, how about some German-bashing.

 

I would rather drive around one of those little Honda Ruckus scooters and wear a poncho versus driving any of those Smart turds. When you look at the size, performance, safety tests, price, actual mpg and etc it is beyond me why anyone would buy one. I did get a kick out of watching the Smart crash tests though. A small Mercedes kicks a Smart like a football during a collision.

 

That is sooooo wrong.

 

I'd rather drive a rickshaw- it's probably got more horseypower and just has that cool indonesian feel to it.


But seriously, that smart look-at-me-I'm-a-resposible-truck-owner thing isn't very smart. What a waste of money on their part to think that it's going to make any kind of a return. Of course, I thought that same thing when I saw the original smart car come out. Now I see way too many of them around.

 

What a Joke...

You can't even hardly fit a bicycle in that tiny bed.

I think this truck (if it makes it to production) will mostly be targted at the younger crowd...For some reason many people of my generation seem to think these micro cars and trucks are cool...I'm 23 years old and I personally think its the uglyest thing to happen to the automotive world in recent years.

Anyway...I'm sure that just like the (Smart Car) its based off of this (Smart Truck) will have disapointing fuel econmy figures and it will sacrafice real world practicality for the (cute) factor.

From what I have read, Most Smart Car owners are reporting disapointing MPG figures...Generally in the low to mid 30's.

If fuel econmy is your main target there are better option's than Smart Cars.

 

While we may scrutinize this vehicle with our American eyes and find it woefully lacking, it was designed by Europeans with their issues in mind. I spent some time in Europe and here are their dynamics:

• No space for parking.
• Small roads.
• Crazy expensive fuel.
• Highly condensed neighborhoods - work and shopping are frequently walking distance from home.
• Excellent public transportation.
• Lower speed limits on most roads.

Basically, Smart is best for regions built around horses and walking. The U.S. was built around cars - big, heavy, powerful, fuel-hungry cars. If gas was $10 a gallon today, we paid for parking by the square foot, and everything we needed was within 5 miles - how would we then view this rig?

 

The Smarts sold here in the states do not get good mpg for what they are. I can see why Europe and other countries like them would need cars like that however that doesn't mean they fit in here in the states. Of course it would seem a lot of people here in the US want and are trying to turn the country into Europe.

 

I don't know. Repost this when it actually happens.

 

The US was built around railroads, including service to suburban sprawl, long before cars were available.

Americans are rich enough to buy large trucks, which have replaced large cars due to CAFE regulations. When you can buy a new truck and pay the insurance, the fuel bill is trivial.

Considering new car prices, I can also put fuel in my used trucks instead, not ever buy a new ride and be even more money ahead.

 

Ding, ding ding! We have a winner!

Los Angeles sprawl has, in our collective short memory, been blamed on cars. In fact, Southern California as an urban area was the creation of Henry Huntington's railroad empire, the Pacific Electric.

 

Go to Google Earth and look at almost any city in the United States with the outskirts of town at the borders of the screen. You'll see downtown is likely lined up on some random-looking angle, then as you get further from the core - the city lines up on a N S E W grid. Downtown lines up with rail, yes - but everything newer builds on a grid, and roads and highways become the central building point. The rails didn't expand like they do in other parts of the world.

In a nutshell, the rails were our foundation - but the cars took over early in the game.

 

Yeah in my area all the "cities" had heavy railway access, then trolleys were added and as the city expanded and suburbs grew every cow path was eventually paved for autos. Before the paving it was dirt roads. The trucking industry also provided a lot of push for major road production. What predates every single one of them was the canal system with locks. Remnants of the old canals can still be seen along a lot of the rivers and some areas have little parks where they preserve the locks for tourism. Talk about a lot of work both to build the system and to transport goods. Almost as soon as the canal system was established and running the steam locomotive came along and made the entire system obsolete.

 

Getting closer to back on topic, it looks like Ford will sell a 1.0 liter three cylinder Ecoboost Fiesta and/or Focus (Im not sure of the details) that will at least equal the Smart in mileage, but with a four passenger car, and without premium fuel. Bring it here, maybe. Only VW sells economical turbodeisels in the US market. If US customers, in enough numbers, are willing to buy a Focus with "only" 120hp or so, and pay a slight premium for a turbo, but give up one cylinder, this could work.

Many here on FTE talk endlessly on how great the 300ci six is, yet those trucks are dog-slow with 140hp or less, yet expect a lighter passenger car to have at least 200hp.

 

I hear you on the 300, it had great low end torque but thats about it. It was horribly slow. What is nice about the EB is the flat power curves that can be acheived with the technology. I'd say that flat torque curve will help make up for the 120hp and still make a decently peppy focus or fiesta. The thing that I never liked about those smaller cars even with the 4cyl is if you put 2 or 3 extra people in them and turn on the A/C they have a hard time getting out of their own way. A flat torque curve should help in that dept.

 

The Chrysler and Mitsu turbos of the 1980s (and a few Ford Mustangs) gave gasoline turbos a bad reputation. Turbo lag made driving in heavy traffic miserable. And, the units themselves seemed to self-destruct. Ive driven a newer Golf GTI with a 2.0 gasoline turo and it has amazing torque, over 200 ft-lb from just above idle on up. Materials, computer controls and motor oils are so much better today that turbos seem to hold up better. Oil used to "coke" in the bearings at shutdown due to the heat. The only way to keep them alive back then was to idle for a minute or so after arriving at your destination before shutting off the engine.