Smart ForTwo 2004 vs Toyota Celica 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 0.8 Diesel | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 41 HP | 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 100 NM | 180 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 19.8 seconds | 7.4 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is a more dynamic driving. Smart ForTwo engine produces 151 HP less power than Toyota Celica, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Toyota Celica. Due to the lower power, Smart ForTwo reaches 100 km/h speed 12.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.4 | 8.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.3 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Smart ForTwo consumes 5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica, which means that by driving the Smart ForTwo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 750 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Smart ForTwo consumes 4.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 22 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Toyota Celica) 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 | 4.35 m | |
| Width: | 1.52 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.32 m | |
|
Smart ForTwo is smaller, but higher. Smart ForTwo is 185 cm shorter than the Toyota Celica, 22 cm narrower, while the height of Smart ForTwo is 23 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 8.7 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Smart ForTwo is 1.7 metres less than that of the Toyota Celica, which means Smart ForTwo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Smart ForTwo has
|
Toyota Celica has
| |