Smart ForTwo 2010 vs Smart ForFour 2005
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.1 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 84 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 NM | 100 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 13.4 seconds | |
|
Smart ForTwo is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForTwo engine produces 9 HP more power than Smart ForFour, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Smart ForFour. Thanks to more power Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Smart ForTwo consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Smart ForFour gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Smart ForFour) 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 | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mitsubishi Colt | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Smart ForFour might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 2.70 m | 3.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 106 cm shorter than the Smart ForFour, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 268 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 910 litres | |
|
Smart ForFour has more luggage space. Smart ForTwo has 48 litres less trunk space than the Smart ForFour. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.8 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 1.7 metres less than that of the Smart ForFour, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`050 | 1`450 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Smart ForTwo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForFour has serious deffects in 165 percent more cases than Smart ForTwo, so Smart ForTwo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Smart ForFour has
| |