Renault Clio 2003 vs Smart ForFour 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.1 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 64 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 92 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 15.3 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is more dynamic to drive. Renault Clio engine produces 11 HP more power than Smart ForFour, whereas torque is 13 NM more than Smart ForFour. Thanks to more power Renault Clio reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForFour is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Clio consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Clio could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Clio consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.81 m | 3.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.45 m | |
| Renault Clio is 6 cm longer than the Smart ForFour, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Clio is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 268 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1037 litres | 910 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Renault Clio has 13 litres less trunk space than the Smart ForFour. This could mean that the Renault Clio uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Clio (by 127 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Clio is 0.2 metres less than that of the Smart ForFour. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`450 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Smart ForFour has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Smart ForFour, so Smart ForFour quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Smart ForFour has
| |