Is This Toyota Smarter than a Smart?

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

As many of you know, I am a bit of an engineering geek. As such, I post some of the more unique and interesting things I find from around the world from time to time for the purposes of discussion. So, I will preface this by saying that I am not suggesting you buy this or anything, but rather that it is an amazing feat of engineering. It's a 4 seater car that is only slightly larger than a Mercedes Benz Smart Fortwo, has better fuel economy than a Smart, and is destined for the US as a 2011 Scion. It's called the Toyota iQ, and it is an amazing piece of industrial design due to it's unique packaging. The fuel tank, for example is less than 5 inches thick, the differential is in front of the engine ( not behind like most front drivers), and it only weighs 1,975 lbs. It is also a Euro NCAP (their NHTSA) 5 star safety rated car. Also, it gets 55 mpg in the combined cycle and is NOT a hybrid. All in a package that is no longer than the original British Mini. Price? Around $13-15k. Anyhow, here's the concept one with a silly body kit and wheels.

One of the articles I read on it is here:http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-toyota-iq.htm

Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_iQ

I will also say that this is why the US has historically lagged so far behind the rest of the world in car design. Instead of smart packaging, design and quality we have focused too much on making the cheapest big car we can. Projects like this are not only useful as cheap transportation, but they also are valuable tools to teach engineers new ideas and concepts in design that can then be used across the board. If US auto makers would try to expand their horizons every now and then by taking on such projects, it would help them learn to build better cars across their entire model lineups.

 

[turbo78]

i agree with the technology, but i guess im just too stubborn to drive somthing that if i get hit in, i will more than probably die. and not being able to b*tch about gas mileage will probably bum me out too...

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

i agree with the technology, but i guess im just too stubborn to drive somthing that if i get hit in, i will more than probably die. and not being able to b*tch about gas mileage will probably bum me out too...

It is actually safer in an accident than a G body due to how it was designed. The G body would be lucky to be a one star car in a modern crash test, the fact that that little thing gets 5 is damn impressive. However, in a high speed collision, it would be a bad place to be because it is probably extremely rigid structurally. It also lacks sufficient space in the front or rear to decrease delta T in the event of a high speed collision, and you would have to rely on the air bags, seats and seat belts to do that instead. It is a common issue with city cars like this (Smart Fortwo, Reva G-Whiz, etc.) and why they are great for urban travel, but not for high speed highways and interstates.

Remember that size is important in a collision, but it is not the final word either. Modern cars are designed to have extremely rigid "safety cages" around the passenger compartments that are hard to crumple, and the energy of an impact is usually dissipated in the areas in front of and behind the doors. A G body is designed to be equally rigid, and is actually very flimsy in it's front end in an impact. The pillars and area around the door windows are pretty bad at retaining their shape in a significant impact, and would likely cause occupant injury. Even an old Volvo is no match of a modern subcompact. Watch this video of an accident between an older Volvo and a Renault Modus (Nissan Versa). Bear in mind that the Volvo is a far safer design than a G body, and they weigh about the same. The result is shocking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

 

[1evilregal]

I agree that cars are designed much safer now, then when our g-bodies were built, but you're still not going to get me into one of those matchbook sized coffins.... most of the testing is based on roughly a car sized vehicle hitting it, but in the real world, there's always a bigger fish....

yeah, that's a smart car in between those....... think I'll take my chances in my regal... :wink:

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

I agree that cars are designed much safer now, then when our g-bodies were built, but you're still not going to get me into one of those matchbook sized coffins.... most of the testing is based on roughly a car sized vehicle hitting it, but in the real world, there's always a bigger fish....

yeah, that's a smart car in between those....... think I'll take my chances in my regal... :wink:

Like I said, there are disadvantages to a smaller car in certain circumstances, and I am in no way telling anyone they should buy one if they really do sell it here. As for that picture, yeah.. ouch. However, i also have to wonder just how well ANY car would fare if pancaked between two dump trucks. If the rear one was laden and had a brake failure at speed, the amount of kinetic energy transmitted at the point of impact would probably do enough damage to something like a Crown Vic that there would be no survivors. As for me, I keep more than one car at a time and a city car is appealing for commuting. It's not fun, but sometimes you just need a good appliance.

 

[madmaxstyle]

wow. good thing I drive an 80 crew cab. I have 8 feet of crumple zone between the bumper and my steering wheel thats equivalent to having a smart car as a bumper😛 😛 😛

 

[Bonnewagon]

I thought the Smart was a deathtrap, but look what the insurance industry thinks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU&feature=related

 

[outsider_27]

I thought the Smart was a deathtrap, but look what the insurance industry thinks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU&feature=related

I noticed how much more the dummy flopped around in the Smart than the Ford. I hate small cars, and don't want to be on the street with a car that I can put in the back of my pickup and drive off with.

 

[Jared Richey]

I personally don't think you're very smart at all to drive one of them.
I think more of my life, and the people I care about than I do a few more mpg.

I pulled up beside one in the Mcdonalds parking lot in my 71 drag car, and literally my door was almost as long as the car. I would say a door and half a fender.

If that thing was to pull out in front of any decent sized car, its lights out for who ever is in there...

 

[custom442]

Watch this video of an accident between an older Volvo and a Renault Modus (Nissan Versa). Bear in mind that the Volvo is a far safer design than a G body, and they weigh about the same. The result is shocking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

No, this one isn't comparable to our g bodies at all. Look where the volvo was hit, on the side, the longitudinal 4cyl isn't blocking anything in that crash. It was obviously planned this way. I guarantee you the result would be much different if it were actually a head on crash and the engine block could absorb the impact.

Our g's have a huge hunk of metal all across our engine bay, the versa has no chance. The g bodies also have a thick steel beam across the doors, I don't care how many airbags the little cars have if you smash directly into their door, they loose. Those safety features might be fine under 40-50mph, save a lot of hurt. But at highway speeds there's no chance. Put a cow rack, roll cage, and harnesses and you now have a G body safer than any tiny car out there.