Our amigo bom, Pedro Pinheiro, from the Matsu blog based in Portugal knows that we love the Smart (consider by The Scooter Scoop to be an honorary scooter). Pete has gone through the trouble of photographing the differences to share with the scoop readers… so without further ado, here’s a side by side comparison of the 2007 Smart (Left) and the 2002 Smart (Right).
So… here on the left we can see that Smart has made the grill more smiley and dropped the fog lights down to the spoiler. The headlights don’t have the same strange, yet endearing “spider eyes” shape that they used to have in previous years. Also the logo on the nose went from the old “Smart” logo type to the simple Smart symbol. I personally like it spelled out. The last thing that really stands out here is that the tridon frame isn’t quite as pronounced as it used to be. You’ll see that in greater detail shortly.
Ok. Face to face you can see some of these differences more clearly. What do you think? I’m leaning toward the old style myself. The silver piece above the headlights makes the front end of the car look shorter… dare I say cuter. The new smart (on the left) is beginning to look more conventional, in other words “like a regular car”.
Ok, the profiles. New Smart left. Less pronounced tridon safety cell now that part of the back end is the same color as the body panels. The wheels are sportier, I’m not sure it that was an option or standard gear. The flares around the wheels appear more angular on the new smart and it looks like the door pull is now parallel with the ground. Over all it appears to be stretched out a bit. Right now, I’m not sure if it actually IS longer or if it’s just an illusion.
On the rear you can see the ’07 edition has the reverse lights built into the turn signals and so you loose an extra lens back there. Also you can see a very obvious shield over the license plate. Maybe that’s where the trunk-pull is. Some of the simplicity seems lost here because of that. Also, the lenses do not appear flush with the back end of the car now (even if they are). The more subdued color scheme around the tridon safety cell seems to reduce the smarts je ne sais quoi.
Open up! New seats are more plain. No fancy cut-outs or cup holders (is that what those are in the ’02?). Not much else to speak of. The angular body panels are easier to see here.
No fuzzy blanket for you “2007″! I understand you’ve got a little more punch in there though, so that makes up for it. Maybe I’ll ask granny to sew up a little quilt for ya though… so you can be warm and cozy. I wonder if we can the the Smart on CuteOverload.
Close up of the speedo. 2007 on the left, eh? Not bad. Easy to read. I approve.
The flight controls. Considerable rearrangement going on for 2007. Loss of the snarky robot look of 2002… you know you see it. The 2 eyes, the orange nose, big mouth with little tongue stickin’ out. I see an added coin tray for 2007 and that a button is missing. The sunroof? I’m not sure. Also, if you look closely, you’ll notice the 2002 version has a sort of obnoxious, blotchy fabric on the seats. Some may argue that it looks cleaner in 2007 and others will say it’s lost its character. I’m leaning toward the later of the two comments.
So, in summary. I would say Smart did some cost cutting… probably homogenizing some of the parts and/or manufacturing methods to match other cars in Daimler’s stable -OR- to offset the cost of other improvements to the engine. The more unique, the more expensive. Making the car less unique means making it less expensive. Is it worth the trade off? Since it has taken THIS long for us to get it in the USA, 13 years according to Wiki, I’m ready to say what ever it takes. It’s still “cute as a button”. I’d even entertain the Smart knock-off, the Ford Think at this point. Let’s just get some microcars up in this joint! Popular Science published a great little article on the Smart in April, seen HERE.
Thanks again to Pedro for the detailed photos! You can also see them by clicking on the title link. I still love ya Smart! Now, hurry up and GET HERE!
PS> So, Pedro… What do YOU think about the new Smart? Anyone else wanna chime in? Would you buy one at $14k – $17k? I’ll have to calculate how it stacks up to buying 2 Burgmans instead.
24. May 2007 at 11:05 am
Steve,
The new Smart is less “quirky” – the Smart has a regular gearbox (clutch, primary and secondary shaft, etc.) but which is electronically controled, so you don’t have a clutch pedal. One of the main “complaints” about the old gearbox is that it shifted slowly, and on hills, it wouldn’t hold the car from sliding backwards (you would have to use the handbrake when you shifted your foot from the brake to the gas). The new Smart has improved a lot in this aspect, much faster and smoother gear shifting, and if it’s in gear, the car won’t slide backwards.
The new Smart is also better acoustically isolated, on the previous model the engine (on the back) could be clearly heard.
The power steering makes steering smoother and easier, although the lack of power steering on the previous model didn’t make the steering too difficult.
And the car is in fact slightly longer, about 7 inches.
24. May 2007 at 1:52 pm
I don’t know why exactly, but I’m not quite as drawn to the new version… the big two losses to my eye are the loss of the rear side window. That area looks particularly heavy on the new version.
The other thing I miss are the daring colored panels with graphics incorporated — and the light green interior.
Hey, if you’re going to have a sprightly, jaunty small car, then go for it.
24. May 2007 at 2:33 pm
It really will depend on if it is big enough to stuff my six foot three american frame in it and still drive.
I would have put one on reserve if I could hac=ve test fit one.
24. May 2007 at 8:30 pm
Oh man! I missed that. The rear side windows are gone. *snif* I’m gonna miss those guys. Thanks for pointing that out Anon!
David! I think you would fit. Click on the title link and check out the video ads. A real big guy gets in that little thing.
And Of course, Pedro… Thanks for the continued insight. Seems like a lot of under the chassis work was done as well as removal of a lot of quirk. I hope the changes don’t mess things up for the 2008 appearance here.
25. May 2007 at 1:32 am
Steve (and all) – I would not pay 14 to 17k for this car, less then 10k and I might consider it.
25. May 2007 at 5:47 am
First, check this> http://www.ford.com/en/redirect/think/default.htm
Second, Yes, I would pay the 14K considering a new Goldwing is 18 to 21.
All of the “feet forward” designs are still one-offs and/or are disporpotionately priced.
Ya know, Honda could suck it up and reissue the old 600. http://www.honda600source.com/
25. May 2007 at 8:17 pm
In the US people have been paying 21 to 25K for these so if they come in at 14k… they will sell. There are over 15,000… $99 reservations already.. :)
27. May 2007 at 12:58 pm
Just a little add on to Pedro’s comment. The older smart (450) does have a hill hold feature. Brakes stay on for about 1/2 second after you take your foot off the throttle. AFAIK they have not changed that in the new one (451). The new tranny is a 5 speed not a 6. With the extra punch in the new engine that should be ok. First gear in the 450 was really just a ‘get her rolling gear’. 2 or 3 seconds and you are into 2nd. The shifting of the 450 is not bad but nothing to write home about. It is sequential shift and if you are dropping 2 gears at a time then you really notice the delay. The 451 is said to have a double clutch that is preselecting the next gear – much quicker.
Would I pay $17K? Well I paid $20KCdn 2 years ago and am loving every minute of it. This is not a little shit box econo car. It is solid and wonderfully engineered. Absolutely great commuter car for when 2 wheels is not an alternative. And yes – it does handle the freeway without a problem.
28. May 2007 at 1:41 am
Motocrossed!
You know, it seemed to me when they first came out they were going for about $9000 US. I’m not positive… if so perhaps that’s why Smart MMC was such a loss leader and is still in the red.
Thanks for the added input Canadian Anon!
28. May 2007 at 2:45 pm
I want one.. for sure. The downfalls of the new one are simple to me.. longer (ugh.. the whole point is a to have a TINY car.) The so-so mpg is a challenge considering the size. In the US we most likely won’t have a diesel option for a while. Apallingly dumb on MB’s account. Alleged 40mpg is not going to seduce many when a Corolla gets that. The plusses of the new iteration are the better interior, possible safety enhancements and real dealer support. If it’s still small enough and can has the power for the San Francisco hills, I’ll most likely get one.
28. May 2007 at 11:45 pm
eh, it’s just longer by a dick’s length. I’ll be taking a test drive some time next year, then I’ll probably get one in ’09.