Smart ForTwo 2007 vs Volkswagen Polo 2009
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 61 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 89 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.7 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForTwo engine produces 44 HP less power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 86 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Due to the lower power, Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo 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 Polo) 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 Polo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 14 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Fabia, Seat Altea, Skoda Yeti | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Polo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Polo 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifetime is relatively short. Vibration at idling speed tends to be excessive. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 2.70 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.49 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 127 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 280 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Smart ForTwo has 60 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 1.8 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`020 | 1`570 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForTwo has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |