1999 • Smart
Fortwo
Smart Fortwo 0.7 i (61 Hp) 1999Overall Score38.5/100
1999 Smart Fortwo vs 2003 Smart Crossblade Comparison
Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.
2003 • Smart
Crossblade
Smart Crossblade 0.6 i (70 Hp) 2003Overall Score39.5/100
WINNER
Smart Crossblade
Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 1 points.
38.5–39.5
SPECIFICATION GROUPS
Every difference between the two cars
Basic Specifications
Smart FortwoSpecificationSmart Crossblade
SmartMakeSmart
FortwoModelCrossblade
1999Model year2003
HatchbackBody typeCabriolet
2Seats2
3Doors2
Performance
Smart FortwoSpecificationSmart Crossblade
15,5 s0–100 km/h16,8 s
135 km/hTop speed135 km/h
698 ccEngine displacement599 cc
61 HPPower70 HP
95 NmTorque100 Nm
3Cylinders3
Fuel & Consumption
Smart FortwoSpecificationSmart Crossblade
PetrolFuel typePetrol
33 ltFuel tank22 lt
6,0 ltUrban consumption6,2 lt
4,0 ltExtra-urban consumption5,3 lt
4,7 ltAverage consumption—
Transmission & Chassis
Smart FortwoSpecificationSmart Crossblade
Rear-wheel driveDrivetrainRear-wheel drive
6Gears6
145/65 R15; 175/55 R15Tyre size195/40 R16; 215/35 R16
YesABSYes
Dimensions
Smart FortwoSpecificationSmart Crossblade
2500 mmLength2500 mm
1515 mmWidth1515 mm
1549 mmHeight1549 mm
805 KgWeight730 Kg
1812 mmWheelbase1812 mm
E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note
1999 Smart Fortwo and 2003 Smart Crossblade approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.
Overall, Smart Crossblade leads the E-Kıyasla score by 1 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.
SIMILAR COMPARISONS
Similar comparisons
Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.
VS
VS
VS
VSComments are loading…