Smart ForTwo 2012 vs Audi TT 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 230 HP | |
| Torque: | 92 NM | 370 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 5.9 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForTwo engine produces 159 HP less power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 278 NM less than Audi TT. Due to the lower power, Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 7.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.3 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 315 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 3.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 540 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 (Audi TT) 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 ForTwo) 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: | 2.70 m | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.35 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 149 cm shorter than the Audi TT, 27 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 22 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 305 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
340 litres | 712 litres | |
|
Audi TT has more luggage space. Smart ForTwo has 85 litres less trunk space than the Audi TT. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi TT (by 372 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.8 meters | 10.96 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 2.16 metres less than that of the Audi TT, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`020 kg | 1`660 kg | |
| Net weight: | 750 kg | 1`260 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 270 kg | 400 kg | |
| Smart ForTwo load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 48 procentiem less than Audi TT. Therefore, Audi TT is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForTwo has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 20 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Audi TT has
| |