Compare two cars
Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion
Marketing
Dimensons & Outlines
Engine
Performance (manual gearbox)
Performance (automatic gearbox)
Expenses
Virtual Adviser's™ opinion
Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 3-door hatchback body style within the same 'Micro car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (front for the Škoda and rear in the case of the Smart). The first one has a Volkswagen-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 75hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 70hp engine designed by Renault.
SafetyThe first thing to look into here would be the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests performed on the two cars. Good thing is that both vehicles got tested, with the Škoda being a slightly better choice apparently. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the micro car segment, which is generally a misfortune safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Czech car offers a marginal difference of 5% more metal.
ReliabilityI don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, at least on all of the models level. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Škoda with an average rating of 4.3, and models under the Smart badge with 3.9 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Citigo as average reliability-wise, and ForTwo is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Czech car rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.0 out of 5.
Performance & Fuel economyŠkoda is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.2 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 171 kilometers per hour, 20km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 4.2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (68 mpg), in combined cycle.
Verdict
Škoda is apparently more reliable, not too much, but just enough. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the Czech car offers much better overall protection, which launches it ahead of the other contender. It all continues in the same direction, with Škoda being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Škoda. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.