Automaker DaimlerChrysler announced today it will export the SMART car into the U.S. market sometime in 2008. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad move, too?

First, I have nothing against small vehicles. I used to own a Dodge Neon and, except for its lousy engine, thought it was a great car. (I donated it to charity where it was later bought for $800 and, as far as I know, still zipping in the streets of SoCal.) I know plenty of folks who follow the “small is beautiful” policy and happily buzz about in their MINI Coopers, Beetles, or xAs.

My concern for the SMART is that is a niche for niche market. For better or worse, SUVs and, increasingly, large vehicles dominate U.S. streets. Worse, especially for SMART and DaimlerChrysler, the reason is primarily psychological. Ask anyone why they bought an SUV and you’ll hear “safety” as one of their top reasons which means “size” in American-speak. SMART, despite impressive results in crash tests, doesn’t convey the same presence with its diminutive size. One of the reasons Mazda’s struggling to sell its Mazda6 is due to the fact the mid-size sedan is smaller than its competition.

Presence rears its ugly head in another way concerning the SMART. Just as Americans were turned off by presidential candidate Al Gore’s articulate and composed manner at the last presidential election, SMART doesn’t convey ‘flash’ like a Mustang, Miata/MX-5, or even stability like an Accord. The former is especially puzzling since DaimlerChrysler partially rebuilt the Chrysler brand when it introduced the Chrysler 300, arguably one of the most conspiciuous sedans currently on the market. The SMART sadly reminds me of the Honda Insight: an odd-looking duck conveying the opposite message to a consumer society. You’ll literally see this when a SMART parks next to even a Honda CR-V SUV or, worse, a Ford Expedition.

One last thought. Do most folks know why domestic automakers like General Motors and Ford don’t have many compact vehicles? Loss. Related to why GM and Ford switched to manufacturing SUVs back in the Nineties, manufacturing and selling inexpensive cars is not profitable for most major automakers. Even Toyota, which currently sells the number one sedan in the U.S., can only make a profit based on multiple use of the chassis (i.e., Lexus ES, SUVs, etc.) and world-wide market. While the SMART’s sold in Europe, it’s not very profitable if at all. I find it hard to believe sales in the U.S. will be able to turn the brand around.

Then why did DaimlerChrysler decide to sell SMARTs in the U.S.? The Big Three, specifically Toyota, Nissan, and Honda. All three Japanese competitors either are selling inexpensive compacts or will be in the near future (Nissan Versa.) Chrysler remembers what happened the last time they brought fuel-efficient vehicles to the U.S. market while Chrysler twiddled its thumbs. I admit that I applauded the company taking the long-term view because there will be losses.

The SMART is coming to U.S. shores. Was is, though, a wise move?