Smart ForFour 2014 vs Toyota Aygo 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 69 HP | |
| Torque: | 91 NM | 95 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.7 seconds | 14.3 seconds | |
|
Toyota Aygo is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForFour engine produces 9 HP less power than Toyota Aygo, whereas torque is 4 NM less than Toyota Aygo. Due to the lower power, Smart ForFour reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 3.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 5.3 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Aygo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForFour consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Aygo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Smart ForFour could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForFour consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Aygo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 28 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 480 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Aygo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Toyota Aygo) 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 280'000 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 Smart ForFour engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Dacia Logan, Dacia Sandero, Renault Twingo | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota Yaris, Citroen C1, Peugeot 107, Peugeot 108 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Aygo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Toyota Aygo 2014 1.0 engine: Engine often vibrates and has difficulty starting in cold weather. Timing chain lifetime is not very long. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.49 m | 3.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.62 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Smart ForFour is larger. Smart ForFour is 4 cm longer than the Toyota Aygo, 5 cm wider, while the height of Smart ForFour is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 168 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
975 litres | no data | |
| Smart ForFour has 16 litres more trunk space than the Toyota Aygo. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.7 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForFour is 1.5 metres less than that of the Toyota Aygo, which means Smart ForFour can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`390 | 1`240 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Toyota Aygo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForFour has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Toyota Aygo, so Toyota Aygo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8200 | 8000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForFour has
|
Toyota Aygo has
| |