Smart ForTwo 2007 vs Toyota Aygo 2009
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 98 HP | 68 HP | |
| Torque: | 140 NM | 93 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 14.2 seconds | |
|
Smart ForTwo is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForTwo engine produces 30 HP more power than Toyota Aygo, whereas torque is 47 NM more than Toyota Aygo. Thanks to more power Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 4.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 5.3 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Aygo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Aygo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Smart ForTwo could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Aygo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 450 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Aygo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Toyota Aygo) 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 | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota Yaris, Citroen C1, Peugeot 107, Peugeot 108 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Aygo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Toyota Aygo 2009 1.0 engine: Engine often vibrates and has difficulty starting in cold weather. Timing chain lifetime is not very long. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 2.70 m | 3.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.62 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 72 cm shorter than the Toyota Aygo, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 139 litres | |
|
Smart ForTwo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Smart ForTwo has 81 litres more trunk space than the Toyota Aygo. The Toyota Aygo 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 | 9.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 0.6 metres less than that of the Toyota Aygo, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`190 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Smart ForTwo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Toyota Aygo has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Smart ForTwo, so Smart ForTwo quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Toyota Aygo has
| |