Smart ForFour 2014 vs Skoda Citigo 2017
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 91 NM | 95 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.9 seconds | 14.4 seconds | |
|
Skoda Citigo is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForFour engine produces 11 HP more power than Skoda Citigo, but torque is 4 NM less than Skoda Citigo. Despite the higher power, Smart ForFour reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 4.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 5.1 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Citigo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForFour consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Citigo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Smart ForFour could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForFour consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Citigo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 28 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 460 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Citigo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 | 1.48 m | |
| Smart ForFour is 7 cm shorter than the Skoda Citigo, 2 cm wider, while the height of Smart ForFour is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 251 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
975 litres | 959 litres | |
| Smart ForFour has 67 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Citigo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Smart ForFour (by 16 litres). | |||
| 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: | 1`435 kg | 1`290 kg | |
| Net weight: | 970 kg | 865 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 465 kg | 425 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Skoda Citigo is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| 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 (€): | 6200 | 6400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForFour has
|
Skoda Citigo has
| |