Smart ForFour 2004 vs Renault Clio 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 109 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForFour engine produces 1 HP less power than Renault Clio, whereas torque is 3 NM less than Renault Clio. Due to the lower power, Smart ForFour reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForFour is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForFour consumes 1.1 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 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForFour consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Smart ForFour gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 310'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Renault Clio engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Colt, Mitsubishi Xpander | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Clio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Renault Clio 2003 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Clio 2003 1.6 engine | |||
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 | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForFour is 0.2 metres less than that of the Renault Clio. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`515 | |
| 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 (€): | 1600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForFour has
|
Renault Clio has
| |