mercedes benz designed it. aesthetically pleasing cars usually are not aerodynamic. Whats your definition of appealing then compare it to aerodynamics. this car may not be aerodynamic but its light enough and engine small enough to make up for it, to an extent
It just came to me about blogging lol. Its like an orgasm a few good shots and the rest is dribbles lol!
i like the way my car looks, though i think it would look better with a slightly longer front. maybe 6 inches The honda s2000 looks great and i bet the aerodynamics are good too. same with a corvettee since we're talking about 2 seaters. If the car was more aerodynamic it would get better gas mileage and probably would look better by default.(could it get any worse?)
I agree, definatley not a chick magnet. I've often said that a fuel efficient car doesn't have to look like some flamboyent, obscure roller skate.
I would be happy if they just put the high MPG drivetrains in the cool looking cars. I love the Scion TC, but why not offer it with the Scion Xa/b drivetrain? I know in the case of the TC that it weighs more than th Xa/b, but why should all the cool looking small cars require the monster HP?
I like the looks of the Smart as a function of it's purpose, but it definitely is a hi-density urban vehicle. It belongs in NYC or Boston or SF, like other people say.
Now, the Smart-for-4 is much better looking, IMO, and might compete well against the Honda Fit.
That SMART car is gay. It needs better aerodynamics, a smaller displacement engine, and a turbocharger for more punch. I'd rather have the SMART Roadster-Coupe.
All of that sacrifice for only 40 mpg? All of that price tag? Won't fly here in the states.
For that price and fugly looks, it should at minimum compete with a Prius in both performance and economy. Otherwise, any rational person not looking for the look or compact size the SMART has(easy parking) will just get a Prius or a motorcycle.
Take a quick cruise through your local trailer court; it's mostly 4x4 pickups and SUVs in there.
You'd be amazed how cheap 10-15 year old pickups and SUVs are to purchase. The rural poor drive them because they are affordable and available vehicles. Just as last decade, it was not uncommon for them to drive the old land yachts from the 1970s and 80s. Those were the crop of cars you could most commonly pick up for $300-500 or so.
Many will also be amazed how many 'economy' cars that you can see in those areas like Chevy Cavaliers, Oldsmobile Cutlasses, Geo Metros, and Ford Escorts. But those tend to be less commonly available for a price affordable to these people, so you won't see as many of them.
The poor take what they can get. I'd say you were pretty lucky to find that Tempo you own for as cheap as you did. During $3/gallon last summer, it was impossible to find a car like that for a decent price in my area. There were people willing to pay $3k for rusted out Metros and CRXs, and $2k for beat up Tempos and Escorts.