Smart ForFour 2004 vs Volkswagen Lupo 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.4 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 | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 126 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 13.9 seconds | |
|
Smart ForFour is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForFour engine produces 34 HP more power than Volkswagen Lupo, whereas torque is 19 NM more than Volkswagen Lupo. Thanks to more power Smart ForFour reaches 100 km/h speed 4.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForFour is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForFour consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo, which means that by driving the Smart ForFour over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForFour consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 34 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 450 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 580 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 450 km with real consumption | ||
| Smart ForFour gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 310'000 km | 370'000 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 Volkswagen Lupo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Colt, Mitsubishi Xpander | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Skoda Fabia, Audi A2 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Lupo engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.75 m | 3.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Smart ForFour is larger, but slightly lower. Smart ForFour is 22 cm longer than the Volkswagen Lupo, 4 cm wider, while the height of Smart ForFour is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 268 litres | 130 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
910 litres | 830 litres | |
|
Smart ForFour has more luggage capacity. Smart ForFour has 138 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Lupo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Smart ForFour (by 80 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForFour is 0.4 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Lupo, which means Smart ForFour can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`390 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Volkswagen Lupo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForFour has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volkswagen Lupo, so Volkswagen Lupo quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForFour has
|
Volkswagen Lupo has
| |