Smart ForTwo vs Daewoo Matiz: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Smart · 2007–2014
ForTwo II
- Power
- 52 kW71 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
Daewoo · 1998–2005
Matiz M100/M150
- Power
- 38 kW52 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 17.0 s
- Top speed
- 144 km/h
In plain words
Smart ForTwo has more power: 52 kW (71 PS) against 38 kW (52 PS) for Daewoo Matiz. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Smart ForTwo yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Full specifications
| Smart ForTwo | Daewoo Matiz | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 1.0 · 52 kW (71 PS) | Matiz M100/M150 · 0.8 three-cylinder · petrol · 38 kW (52 PS) |
| Production years | 2007–2014 | 1998–2005 |
| Body | Hatchback, Convertible | Hatchback |
| Country | France | South Korea |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 52 kW (71 PS) 70 hp Better | 38 kW (52 PS) 51 hp |
| Power, all versions | 30–66 kW (41–90 PS) 40–89 hp | 38–49 kW (52–67 PS) 51–66 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | No data | 69 Nm 51 lb-ft |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | No data | 17.0 s |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | No data | 144 km/h 89 mph |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Petrol |
| Engine | 1,000 cc · 3 cyl 1.0 l | 800 cc · 3 cyl 0.8 l |
| Drive | Rear-wheel drive | Front-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | No data | 3,497 mm 137.7 in |
| Width | No data | 1,495 mm 58.9 in |
| Height | No data | 1,850 mm 72.8 in |
| Wheelbase | No data | 2,340 mm 92.1 in |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 340 l 12.0 cu ft | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 4.6 l/100 km 51.1 mpg US | No data |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | No data | ★★★☆☆ (2000) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).