Smart ForTwo 2007 vs Renault Megane 2009
| 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 | 151 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.3 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForTwo engine produces 39 HP less power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 59 NM less than Renault Megane. Due to the lower power, Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 330 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Renault Megane) 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 | 25 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Megane might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 2.70 m | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 160 cm shorter than the Renault Megane, 24 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 12 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 344 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 377 litres | |
|
Renault Megane has more luggage space. Smart ForTwo has 124 litres less trunk space than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 8.8 meters | 10.95 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 2.15 metres less than that of the Renault Megane, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`020 | 1`728 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Smart ForTwo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Smart ForTwo, so Smart ForTwo quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Renault Megane has
| |