Smart ForFour 2014 vs Skoda Citigo 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 91 NM | 95 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.9 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
|
Skoda Citigo is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForFour engine produces 4 HP less power than Skoda Citigo, whereas torque is 4 NM less than Skoda Citigo. Due to the lower power, Smart ForFour reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 4.2 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 28 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 470 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Citigo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| 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: | 3.49 m | 3.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.65 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.46 m | |
| Smart ForFour is 7 cm shorter than the Skoda Citigo, 2 cm wider, while the height of Smart ForFour is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 185 litres | 251 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
975 litres | no data | |
|
Skoda Citigo has more luggage space. Smart ForFour has 66 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Citigo. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.7 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForFour is 1.1 metres less than that of the Skoda Citigo, which means Smart ForFour can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`400 | 1`290 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below 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 (€): | 8000 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForFour has
|
Skoda Citigo has
| |