Smart ForTwo 2007 vs Citroen C4 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.6 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 | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 92 NM | 147 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.3 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Citroen C4 is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForTwo engine produces 39 HP less power than Citroen C4, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Citroen C4. Due to the lower power, Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C4, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 360 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C4 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Citroen C4) 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen Xsara, Citroen C3, Peugeot 207, Peugeot 206 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen C4 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Citroen C4 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 | 4.27 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 157 cm shorter than the Citroen C4, 21 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 314 litres | |
|
Citroen C4 has more luggage space. Smart ForTwo has 94 litres less trunk space than the Citroen C4. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.8 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 2 metres less than that of the Citroen C4, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`020 | 1`720 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Smart ForTwo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C4 has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Smart ForTwo, so Smart ForTwo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Citroen C4 has
| |