Smart ForTwo 2004 vs Volkswagen Lupo 1998
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 0.7 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 61 HP | 50 HP | |
| Torque: | 95 NM | 86 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.5 seconds | 17.7 seconds | |
|
Smart ForTwo is more dynamic to drive. Smart ForTwo engine produces 11 HP more power than Volkswagen Lupo, whereas torque is 9 NM more than Volkswagen Lupo. Thanks to more power Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Lupo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 33 litres | 34 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 730 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 530 km with real consumption | ||
| Smart ForTwo 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 Lupo) 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: | 2.50 m | 3.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.52 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 103 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Lupo, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 130 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 8.5 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 1.3 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Lupo, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`340 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Volkswagen Lupo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForTwo has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volkswagen Lupo, so Volkswagen Lupo quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Volkswagen Lupo has
| |