smart forfour Reviews from Switzerland

2006 smart forfour Pulse 1.1

Model year2006
Year of manufacture2006
First year of ownership2012
Most recent year of ownership2012
Engine and transmission 1.1 Semi-Automatic
Performance marks 3 / 10
Reliability marks 4 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Dealer Service marks 1 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
3.0 / 10
Distance when acquired124 kilometres
Most recent distance128 kilometres
Previous carChrysler Neon

Summary:

A stylish but frustrating and even dangerous vehicle to operate

Faults:

Left CV joint needed replacing (replaced myself).

Needed a wheel alignment (did it myself).

Fuel level sensor malfunctioning.

General Comments:

With only 75 PS / (55kW), this car is on the slow end of the spectrum, but due to its weight, it moves a little quicker than what you would expect & it handles decently.

Rear & forward visibility at the D & A pillars should be a major concern, especially to those considering this as a first car. In such situations I would strongly recommend against it.

The ridiculously placed window switches, incomprehensibly slow changing (often clunky) semi automatic transmission, annoying blinker switch & useless sun visors without so much as the help of tinting across the top of the front windshield, really aggravate anybody who has been driving different makes of automobiles for any period of time.

In the winter, the door latches can also jam on you so that your doors won't stay shut!

All in all, I would recommend the 1.3L 95 PS engine compared to the 1.1 75 PS engine, due to its slightly better fuel economy and power, but if the 75 is the only model you can find, it's not that bad for 75HP. I have driven slower cars. This however is the slowest I have ever owned, & it was given to me. For others that are interested in the forfour, I would recommend you look into the Mitsubishi Colt from the same year, which was built on the same platform. While it doesn't have the same funky styling, it's performance & fuel figures are similar plus Mitsubishi had the good sense not to make the same mistakes to the sun visor, window tinting and power window switch placement.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 22nd November, 2012

2006 smart forfour 1.0

Model year2006
Year of manufacture2006
First year of ownership2006
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 1.0 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired0 kilometres
Most recent distance35000 kilometres
Previous carBMW 3 Series

Summary:

Great car. Really impressive

Faults:

Nothing. Most reliable car I have owned. Ever.

General Comments:

Very reliable. Roomy for four 6 foot passengers. Cheap to run, insure and fix.

This car was bought purely as a local runabout. The main family car is a Mercedes A-Class. The Smart's more reliable, burning half the gas.

It handles like a Porsche. It seemingly begs to be thrashed. Minimal body roll. Sports car like suspension. Twice I inadvertently put it into a four wheel skid taking corners too fast. The car was completely control-able. Very impressive. The 1.0 litre, 64hp three cylinder screams like an old Fiat.

When you are done driving like a maniac, you can load the car with kids and be a responsible adult. The car has very quick steering and very effective brakes. It is very easy to park due to its short wheelbase.

I have loaded up the car with four adults six feet tall, and been able to cruise at 130km an hour effortlessly. Fuel consumption is also impressive. It costs me roughly GBP30 every two weeks.

Great visibility.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 4th April, 2008

18th Mar 2011, 08:38

Here's an update in March 2011. The car has 64,000km on it, and it continues to be a very reliable car. Annual servicing cost is an average of $300. Well engineered car.

2005 smart forfour Pulse 1.3

Model year2005
Year of manufacture2005
First year of ownership2006
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 1.3 Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired10000 kilometres
Most recent distance20000 kilometres
Previous carsmart fortwo - city coupe

Summary:

This is a good, fun-to-drive car, why didn't it sell better?

Faults:

Nothing.

General Comments:

My wife bought this car to replace her original smart for two when we had a second child. There are contrasts and similarities between these two cars from smart:

Similarities are that both cars have character, often lacking in modern cars although I admit with smart it can be a love it or loathe it experience. Both cars are also surprisingly practical for their size. The forfour can easily seat four adults and the back seat slides to trade leg room with boot space. Quality seems good and the plastic bodywork is resistant to scrapes and dings picked up in car parks. Interior layout is also stylish and more interesting than many other super minis.

Contrasts: The forfour handles like it is on rails. We have the 1.3 - not the sporty brabus model, but the lively Mitsubishi sourced engine and low weight make it great fun to drive. The old ForTwo handled very poorly and once out of town was a disaster. In winter I would even say it was dangerous. The ForFour is amazing in comparison. The gearbox of our ForFour is an automated manual, but is quicker and less jerky than the original forTwo plus it has a creep mode which makes town stop-start driving more responsive than with the old forTwo. Makes a good compromise between manual control (in tiptronic mode) and a true automatic. Motorway driving is also possible and comfortable in the forFour.

In general we really like this car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 7th February, 2008

Average review marks: 6.6 / 10, based on 3 reviews