1996 Renault Clio vs. 2012 Smart ForTwo
To start off, 2012 Smart ForTwo is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Renault Clio. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Renault Clio would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Renault Clio is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Renault Clio (250 HP) has 179 more horse power than 2012 Smart ForTwo. (71 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Renault Clio should accelerate faster than 2012 Smart ForTwo.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Renault Clio (407 Nm) has 282 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Smart ForTwo. (125 Nm). This means 1996 Renault Clio will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Smart ForTwo. 2012 Smart ForTwo has automatic transmission and 1996 Renault Clio has manual transmission. 1996 Renault Clio will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2012 Smart ForTwo will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Renault Clio | 2012 Smart ForTwo | |
| Make | Renault | Smart |
| Model | Clio | ForTwo |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Middle | Rear |
| Engine Size | 3000 cc | 1000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 250 HP | 71 HP |
| Torque | 407 Nm | 125 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 5-speed automated manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 2 seats |
