Toyota Aygo 2014 vs Smart ForFour 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 0.9 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 69 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 95 NM | 136 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.3 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Smart ForFour is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Aygo engine produces 21 HP less power than Smart ForFour, whereas torque is 41 NM less than Smart ForFour. Due to the lower power, Toyota Aygo reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.8 | 4.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.3 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Aygo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Aygo consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour, which means that by driving the Toyota Aygo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Aygo consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 35 litres | 28 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 710 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 450 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Aygo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota Yaris, Citroen C1, Peugeot 107, Peugeot 108 | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Renault Clio, Dacia Logan, Renault Captur, Nissan Micra | |
| 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: | 3.46 m | 3.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.62 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Toyota Aygo is smaller. Toyota Aygo is 4 cm shorter than the Smart ForFour, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Aygo is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 168 litres | 184 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 975 litres | |
| Toyota Aygo has 16 litres less trunk space than the Smart ForFour. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 8.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Aygo is 1.5 metres more than that of the Smart ForFour, which means Toyota Aygo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`240 | 1`420 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Smart ForFour has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Toyota Aygo has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Smart ForFour, so Smart ForFour quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8000 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Aygo has
|
Smart ForFour has
| |