Smart ForTwo 2010 vs Volkswagen Lupo 1998
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.0 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: | 71 HP | 50 HP | |
| Torque: | 92 NM | 86 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 17.7 seconds | |
|
Smart ForTwo is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForTwo engine produces 21 HP more power than Volkswagen Lupo, whereas torque is 6 NM more than Volkswagen Lupo. Thanks to more power Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.6 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 34 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 730 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 530 km with real consumption | ||
| Smart ForTwo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Lupo) 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 330'000 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: | 8 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volkswagen Polo, Seat Ibiza, Seat Arosa | |
| 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: | 2.70 m | 3.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 84 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Lupo, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 130 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
|
Smart ForTwo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Smart ForTwo has 90 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Lupo. The Volkswagen Lupo may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.8 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 1 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Lupo, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`020 | 1`340 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Smart ForTwo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Lupo has serious deffects in 285 percent more cases than Smart ForTwo, so Smart ForTwo quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Volkswagen Lupo has
| |