Smart ForTwo 2010 vs Volkswagen Lupo 1998
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 84 HP | 50 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 NM | 86 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 17.7 seconds | |
|
Smart ForTwo is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForTwo engine produces 34 HP more power than Volkswagen Lupo, whereas torque is 34 NM more than Volkswagen Lupo. Thanks to more power Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 34 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km on highway | 730 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 530 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Lupo) 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 | 3.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 84 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Lupo, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 130 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
|
Smart ForTwo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Smart ForTwo has 90 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Lupo. The Volkswagen Lupo 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 | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 1 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Lupo, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`050 | 1`340 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Smart ForTwo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Lupo has serious deffects in 285 percent more cases than Smart ForTwo, so Smart ForTwo quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Volkswagen Lupo has
| |