Smart ForFour 2004 vs Renault Clio 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.1 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 125 NM | 93 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 15 seconds | |
|
Smart ForFour is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForFour engine produces 35 HP more power than Renault Clio, whereas torque is 32 NM more than Renault Clio. Thanks to more power Smart ForFour reaches 100 km/h speed 4.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Clio is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Smart ForFour consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio, which means that by driving the Smart ForFour over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Smart ForFour consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Colt | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Kangoo, Renault Twingo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.75 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.42 m | |
| Smart ForFour is 6 cm shorter than the Renault Clio, 4 cm wider, while the height of Smart ForFour is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 268 litres | 255 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
910 litres | 1035 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Smart ForFour has 13 litres more trunk space than the Renault Clio. The Renault Clio may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Clio (by 125 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForFour is 0.2 metres more than that of the Renault Clio. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| 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 (€): | 1800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForFour has
|
Renault Clio has
| |