Smart ForTwo 2012 vs Volkswagen Polo 2009
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 92 NM | 108 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 16.1 seconds | |
|
Smart ForTwo is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForTwo engine produces 11 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, but torque is 16 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.3 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Polo) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Smart ForTwo) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 2.70 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.49 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 128 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 280 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 952 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Smart ForTwo has 60 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.8 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`020 | 1`550 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForTwo has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |