Smart ForTwo 2004 vs Citroen C4 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 0.8 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 41 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 100 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 19.8 seconds | 12.4 seconds | |
|
Citroen C4 is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForTwo engine produces 69 HP less power than Citroen C4, whereas torque is 140 NM less than Citroen C4. Due to the lower power, Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 7.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.4 | 4.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.3 l/100km | 5.4 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 1.3 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 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 22 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 1270 km in combined cycle | |
| 510 km with real consumption | 1110 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C4 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 2.50 m | 4.27 m | |
| Width: | 1.52 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 177 cm shorter than the Citroen C4, 25 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 314 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 8.7 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 2.1 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): | no data | 1`630 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | 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 (€): | 2000 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Citroen C4 has
| |