Daewoo Matiz vs Smart ForTwo: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Daewoo · 1998–2005
Matiz M100/M150
- Power
- 38 kW52 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 17.0 s
- Top speed
- 144 km/h
Smart · 2007–2014
ForTwo II
- Power
- 52 kW71 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
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
| Daewoo Matiz | Smart ForTwo | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | Matiz M100/M150 · 0.8 three-cylinder · petrol · 38 kW (52 PS) | 1.0 · 52 kW (71 PS) |
| Production years | 1998–2005 | 2007–2014 |
| Body | Hatchback | Hatchback, Convertible |
| Country | South Korea | France |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 38 kW (52 PS) 51 hp | 52 kW (71 PS) 70 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 38–49 kW (52–67 PS) 51–66 hp | 30–66 kW (41–90 PS) 40–89 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 69 Nm 51 lb-ft | No data |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | 17.0 s | No data |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | 144 km/h 89 mph | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | No data |
| Engine | 800 cc · 3 cyl 0.8 l | 1,000 cc · 3 cyl 1.0 l |
| Drive | Front-wheel drive | Rear-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 3,497 mm 137.7 in | No data |
| Width | 1,495 mm 58.9 in | No data |
| Height | 1,850 mm 72.8 in | No data |
| Wheelbase | 2,340 mm 92.1 in | No data |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | No data | 340 l 12.0 cu ft |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 4.6 l/100 km 51.1 mpg US |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★☆☆ (2000) | No data |
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).