Volkswagen Lupo 1998 vs Smart ForFour 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 126 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.9 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Smart ForFour is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Lupo engine produces 20 HP less power than Smart ForFour, but torque is 1 NM more than Smart ForFour. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Lupo reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForFour is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Lupo consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Lupo could require 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Lupo consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForFour. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 34 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 450 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 580 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 450 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Smart ForFour gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volkswagen Lupo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Skoda Fabia, Audi A2 | Used also on Mitsubishi Colt | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Lupo engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.53 m | 3.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Volkswagen Lupo is smaller, but slightly higher. Volkswagen Lupo is 22 cm shorter than the Smart ForFour, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Lupo is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 130 litres | 268 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 910 litres | |
|
Smart ForFour has more luggage space. Volkswagen Lupo has 138 litres less trunk space than the Smart ForFour. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Smart ForFour (by 80 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.1 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Lupo is 0.4 metres less than that of the Smart ForFour, which means Volkswagen Lupo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`390 | 1`450 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Volkswagen Lupo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Smart ForFour has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volkswagen Lupo, so Volkswagen Lupo quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Lupo has
|
Smart ForFour has
| |