Smart ForTwo 2010 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 152 HP | |
| Torque: | 92 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForTwo engine produces 81 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 158 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 5.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.3 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 240 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1210 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 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 (Volvo V40) 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 | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 167 cm shorter than the Volvo V40, 24 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 324 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 1500 litres | |
|
Volvo V40 has more luggage space. Smart ForTwo has 104 litres less trunk space than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.8 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 2 metres less than that of the Volvo V40, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`020 kg | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForTwo has serious deffects in 315 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 11 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |