Letters
Ward's AutoWorld, Mar 1, 2008 12:00 PM

I enjoyed your article on the Smart Fortwo (see WAW — Feb. '08, pp.43). You mentioned the crash test at 31 mph (50 km/h), presumably into an immovable wall. That sounds OK, but the forces endured in that crash would be much smaller than the forces endured by crashing into another vehicle, head-on at a combined 31 mph.

Neither vehicle would come to an instantaneous stop (as happens for a crash into a wall). Instead, the heavier vehicle is slowed down by a factor related to the weight ratio. The lighter car, the Fortwo, is pushed backward.

Since the force on the dummy is related to the change in momentum, the occupant in the Fortwo could feel twice the impact as in a crash into a wall, while an occupant in the other vehicle might feel only half the impact.
Stephen J. Harris
Bloomfield, MI

I take exception to the sugGESTION that a high-horsepower car is perceived to always be a “gas guzzler” or a “fuel gulper” (see WAW — Feb. '08, p.6). With increased horsepower comes increased torque. With more torque comes an increased ability to cruise at lower RPMs while maintaining highway speeds with ease and without overtaxing an engine like a small 4-cyl., which would need higher RPMs to run at the same speeds.

I have a '95 Corvette, which, at 300 hp, is not high by today's standards, but still is no slouch. Even with the prevailing “green” attitude, I can cruise at 72 mph (116 km/h), turning only 1,750 rpm and enjoying 25-26 mpg (9.4-9 L/100 km). The '08 Corvettes will get that mileage or better, even though they are cruising along with at least 430 hp.

I agree that increased displacement would normally indicate poorer mileage. But we have the advantage today of vastly improved transmissions and drivetrains with overdrives that gear down to the extent that high horsepower/high mileage combinations are possible. The Corvette is a prime example. I can't speak for the Dodge Viper.

Please join with the sports car fans in denying the Environmental Protection Agency the capability to take away our rides, as they are attempting to do. The EPA should be told in no uncertain terms, “Don't knock it until you've tried it.” If they had their way we'd all be driving the new Smart Fortwo cars.

The day of the big SUVs will pass, as the price of gasoline will weed out through natural attrition those who don't want to pay the price to fuel them. With their size and weight, even more horsepower won't help to move them down the road at high mileage like a smaller, lighter, more streamlined, but high horsepower sports car.

I can appreciate that we don't want to shoot the messenger, and that is what you were in writing this article. But, please, in the future, try to include some justification for the higher horsepower sports cars that we continue to dote over.
Neal E. Hornung
Lima, Ohio

Hey, what's going on? I turned to the last page of the February issue, and no scathing editorial by Jerry Flint? I expect Jerry's editorials until the U.S. auto industry is back to its 1960s market share, while producing vehicles with new millennium technologies at a 1970s price. We need “Our Man Flint” (with apologies to James Coburn) to keep us sharp and on top of our game.
John Pavlica, Jr.
Toledo, OH

Editor's note: Relax John. Whether you love him or hate him, you can continue to read Jerry Flint's popular columns every month on the front page of WardsAuto.com. Also, Flint will rotate every other month on the back page of Ward's AutoWorld with opinion columns by other Ward's staffers in a new feature we call “Exhaust.”

We want your feedback. Please email comments to Editor Drew Winter at dwinter@wardsauto.com. Include your name, city and state. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.