Smart ForTwo 2010 vs Citroen C1 2008
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 84 HP | 68 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 NM | 93 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 13.7 seconds | |
|
Smart ForTwo is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForTwo engine produces 16 HP more power than Citroen C1, whereas torque is 27 NM more than Citroen C1. Thanks to more power Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 5.1 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C1 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C1, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Smart ForTwo could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C1. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 500 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C1 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Citroen C1) 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota Yaris, Toyota Aygo, Peugeot 107, Peugeot 108 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen C1 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 2.70 m | 3.44 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 74 cm shorter than the Citroen C1, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 139 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 751 litres | |
|
Smart ForTwo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Smart ForTwo has 81 litres more trunk space than the Citroen C1. The Citroen C1 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.8 meters | 9.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 0.7 metres less than that of the Citroen C1, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`050 | 1`190 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Smart ForTwo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C1 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Smart ForTwo, so Smart ForTwo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Citroen C1 has
| |