Smart ForTwo 2004 vs Volkswagen Lupo 1999
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 0.8 Diesel | 1.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 41 HP | 61 HP | |
| Torque: | 100 NM | 140 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 19.8 seconds | 14.5 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Lupo is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForTwo engine produces 20 HP less power than Volkswagen Lupo, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volkswagen Lupo. Due to the lower power, Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 5.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.4 | 3.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.3 l/100km | 4.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Lupo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Smart ForTwo could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 22 litres | 34 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 1130 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 850 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Lupo 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 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: | 2.50 m | 3.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.52 m | 1.62 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 103 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Lupo, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 130 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 8.7 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 1.6 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): | no data | 1`210 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Volkswagen Lupo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForTwo has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volkswagen Lupo, so Volkswagen Lupo quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Volkswagen Lupo has
| |