Skoda Citigo 2017 vs Smart ForFour 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 71 HP | |
| Torque: | 95 NM | 91 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.4 seconds | 16.9 seconds | |
|
Skoda Citigo is more dynamic to drive. Skoda Citigo engine produces 11 HP less power than Smart ForFour, but torque is 4 NM more than Smart ForFour. Despite less power, Skoda Citigo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.1 | 4.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.1 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Citigo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Citigo consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour, which means that by driving the Skoda Citigo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Citigo consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 35 litres | 28 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 460 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Citigo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Skoda Citigo) 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 ForFour) 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: | 3.56 m | 3.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.55 m | |
| Skoda Citigo is 7 cm longer than the Smart ForFour, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Citigo is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 251 litres | 184 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
959 litres | 975 litres | |
| Skoda Citigo has 67 litres more trunk space than the Smart ForFour. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Smart ForFour (by 16 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 8.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Citigo is 1.1 metres more than that of the Smart ForFour, which means Skoda Citigo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`290 kg | 1`435 kg | |
| Net weight: | 865 kg | 970 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 425 kg | 465 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Skoda Citigo is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Smart ForFour has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Citigo has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Smart ForFour, so Smart ForFour quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6800 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Citigo has
|
Smart ForFour has
| |