Fitting adults inside isn’t an issue for me; am single (and small) and hardly ever have more than one passenger. Funny, I had a Geo Metro and was looking on cars.com for a replacement when the Swift came up; I had no idea it had a “sister car.” These cars are way fun to drive; hope Yaris doesn’t disappoint.
I appreciate that some folks obsess over safety above all else, and I agree that ends with everyone driving Hummers. Not a real solution. I have been trying to point out that “smallest, most economical, most efficient” are 3 different things. The smallest car may not be the “most economical”, and the “most efficient” may be quite large. Plus, the definitions of most economical and most efficient are up for debate.
Your best financial move is to keep what you have and fix it. That’s almost always true. After that, when you decide you really need to get another car you’ll have to balance the other things as best you can for your desires. Decide if MPG is more important than absolute smallest size, or if cost per mile is more important, or possibly even overall environmental impact. Whichever of those priorities ends up on top will likely change which vehicle you choose.
And to think, I thought that relegating my 11 MPG Bronco to bad weather duty and using my 20 MPG Mustang GT as a daily driver was an ecological/financial triumph.
RE: Honda Insight/CRX…
Just don’t like the looks of that; can’t explain why, but just doesn’t do it for me. Who can explain love?
While I’m all in favor or good mileage, I’d like to suggest there may be a point of diminishing returns. Say you drive 20,000 miles a year and gas is $4 a gallon. Switching from a 10 mpg gas hog to a 20 mpg vehicle saves a whopping $4000 a year. Moving to 40 mpg saves another $2000. But you’d have to get 80 mpg (riding a Vespa?) to save another $1000. At some point you have to ask what comfort and safety are worth to you (especially if you drive 20,000 miles a year!).
I’ve had my Mini Cooper over 4 years with no problems. It gets 27 mpg on my commute and up to 30 on the open road. The non-supercharged version would have done about 3 mpg better and either version would probably do a little better outside of CA. Since '07 Minis have an entirely new engine that I believe gets even better mileage. The thing is, it’s not really an “economy car” in the sense of having been designed to be as inexpensive as possible. It’s a real car suitable for mature adults and as safe as anything its size could be. I enjoy driving it and not just from self-righteousness. And with only 24k miles it’s still worth 75% of what I paid for it.
So wear the hair shirt if you must, but if you really want to save the planet, don’t have children.
-b-
My Yaris is a pretty comfortable “hair shirt”. The heater blasts out hot air within the first mile of driving, the AC blasts out cold air. I do have to shift gears and step on a clutch pedal, oh how I suffer! And finally, I am not working like a slave to make the payments, in fact I’m not making any payments at all, it was completely mine from the time I drove it off the dealer’s lot.
Is it really a “luxury car” if you’re working like a slave to pay for it?
Very good point, any car that you can’t write a check for is a car that you cannot afford to be driving. I would rather drive a complete POS than have to make a car payment.
Re the different mpg, our gallons here in Europe (well, the UK, everyone else uses nice standard litres/liters) are bigger, equivalent to about 1.2 US gallons, so we would expect to get a higher mpg figure on the same engine: you might not be getting a less efficient car at all. And your road tests might be different from the European standard, exacerbating any difference. Though I have noticed driving in America that US models of cars I know in Europe are tuned very differently, and wonder what rechipping with a European chip would do. Good luck in your search: my American-transplanted sister is persuading her other half into a Smart just now, he’s most intrigued by being able to park it perpendicular to the kerb!
I got behind a Camry sedan that looked to be from the mid 80s(don’t find too many imports from that era around here in my part of ohio), and I did notice that my Civic coupe was about the same size as the Camry, and it was probably a big car back then.
And Craig, don’t you mean “Can’t write a check for”? 
“And Craig, don’t you mean “Can’t write a check for”? :p”
Thanks, fixed it.
I know this probably will just make the discussion even more cluttered, but some background on the Smart. From a Daimler-Benz corporate engineering viewpoint, the original model Smart (c. 2001-2006) was designed without US Federal certification in mind. EU automobile certification does include crash testing, but the test standards are different. The major-model changeover redesign of the Smart, which became available in Europe c. 2007, was designed from the beginning to be US and EU certified both. While the exterior styling changes between the old and new model Smarts are subtle, they are completely different vehicles. The 2001-2006 Smart was sold in Canada, and a small number were “gray market federalized” with expensive modifications so they could be sold in the US legally, but this was done by third party companies not by Daimler-Benz. The 2007-2008 new Smart is now being built right at the Smart factory in France with all the necessary US model hardware. The tip-off you’re seeing an older Smart is the teeny-tiny taillights. The headlights also look different. While it may not have been subjected to optional Insurance Industry tests yet (IIHS), the lack of crash test data also may be just a case of very recent data not yet being available to post on the web.
Re gas mileage, along with the litres / US gallons / Imp gallons discussion, it is also important to note that the EU and Canada Smarts are available with diesel engines. And the 2008 US Smart is not. This could easily lead to some confusion between getting 40mpg and 60mpg.
Now, for what sounds to me like the achilles-heel weak point of the Smart for me (but I’ve never driven one of course) why the heck are they only available with one type of transmission, which appears to combine only the worst attributes of manuals and automatics? IE, slow, jerky, but with no driver involvement to make driving fun. Bring us a Smart with a clutch pedal!!
To learn more about the SmartCar try clubsmartcar.ca. It is Canadian but they have a United States Topic section. They are on the ground here. The biggest drawback is dollars for efficiency doesn’t equate so you really have to love the look.
That’s the problem with any “specialty” vehicle that you can’t use as your primary transportation, they will never pay for themselves so they are really just toys. It’s like buying a motorcycle to save fuel (maybe your wife will pretend to believe you, but we all know it’s just an excuse to buy a new toy).
I agree, my motorcycle uses nearly as much gas as my car does, but then, it also has more horsepower than my car does. This results in 0-60 times of around 3 seconds if you have enough traction and can keep the front wheel on the ground. It brings out the inner hooligan in me.
The swift is back with AWD and a very cool exterior, it is called something else now.
I don’t know much about the swift, but I can’t imagine the Fit being too big for anyone (although it is so well designed, it seems very large). The Fit was tested by consumer reports at 43/44 miles per gallon on all interstate driving (for the manual/auto, respectively). I do mostly in town driving (I have a 4.5 mile one way commute on all city streets) and I get 30 to 32 mpg consistently with my manual. The Yaris is rated by EPA at about 1 mpg higher, but has a horrible safety rating (unless you can find one with side air bags - good luck I think they make about 2 of those per year). If you do find one with the air bags, you will pay more for it than the Fit (on which side curtain and head protection airbags are standard). I spent a lot of time looking at these cars last October - The only current model in the class to beat the Fit’s overall ranking in consumer reports was the Nissan Versa with a CVT (but it is also a lot more money with that option). Also, the Fit’s four doors and the nifty way the rear seats fold up make it much more useful than the Yaris or others. Other than going diesel or hybrid, I don’t think you can do much better on mileage.
“but moreover am dedicated to the concept of efficient use of small space.”
I don’t think there is a car on the road that tops the Fit in this category (but then I am a little biased). Seriously though, that is what really sold me on the car - the ease and efficiency of the way the seats fold up and down, back and forth is one of a kind. The car will swallow a bicycle upright (with from wheel off) or whole if laying down. And with a bit of ingenuity and cloth protection it will even swallow a tandem bicycle upright with front wheel off. Check out: http://www.blayleys.com/articles/cars/index.htm
Wow; lots of brand loyalty out there… FWIW, I don’t consider that I’m “wearing a hair shirt” driving my Swift… It’s the smallest I could find and the most gas-efficient I could find and the most inexpensive I could find, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT… Perfectly comfortable, thank you very much!!! I’m sure people riding high in SUVs simply assume I can’t afford better; indeed, I can… I simply choose not to spend – or expend – my “life energy” buying more car than I need or want simply to impress strangers on the road.
Suzuki has a new (similar) model this year with AWD which, sorry, I simply don’t need and, at $17k, don’t care to pay for… It’s not the Swift come back again… But keep the faith, children; keep the faith…
I don’t know about that, I use my modified Mustang GT as a daily driver on days when it’s not raining or snowing (it’s hard to get traction with 4.10 gears and a blower). I used to use my Bronco as the dd, but at 196k miles, I decided to retire it from active duty. My TR6 only comes out in the spring and summer and then only during the day, since the headlights (among other things) don’t work reliably.