Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Smart ForFour fuel consumption

Of all Smart ForFour modifications produced from 2004 to 2019 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 25% higher compared to advertised consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 28% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 21% higher. Since 2004 the Smart ForFour average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been significantly higher than average.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersSmart ForFourAll carmakersSmart ForFour
2004+7%+16% +9%+21%
Show all years
2005+8%+15% +10%+21%
2006+9%+17% +11%+21%
2014+26%+41% +30%-
2015+27%+41% +33%-
2016+28%+41% +36%-
2017+28%+41% +38%-
2018+28%+45% +39%-
2019+27%+45% +37%-

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Smart ForFour.

2014 - 2019

Smart ForFour 2014 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines54.4 MPG
4.3 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines38.7 MPG
6.1 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+41%

According to advertised fuel consumption, Smart ForFour 2014 with automatic transmission have almost the same fuel economy as similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Smart ForFour with automatic transmission consumes around 0.2 litres per 100 km or 3% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Smart ForFour advertised fuel economy is slightly better than average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is slightly worse than average.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 0.9 petrol engine and manual transmission (SMART forfour 2014 0.9 90 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Smart ForFour with 0.9 petrol engine and automatic transmission (SMART forfour 2014 0.9 Automatic 90 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
0.9 liter petrol engine
SMART forfour 2014 0.9 90 HP manual 54.7 MPG
4.3 l/100km
37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km+44%
SMART forfour 2014 0.9 Automatic 90 HP automatic 56.0 MPG
4.2 l/100km
36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km+52%
1.0 liter petrol engine
SMART forfour 2014 1.0 60 Hp 60 HP manual 50.0 MPG
4.7 l/100km
40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km+23%
SMART forfour 2014 1.0 71 Hp 71 HP manual 56.0 MPG
4.2 l/100km
39.9 MPG
5.9 l/100km+40%
SMART forfour 2014 1.0 71 Hp Automatic 71 HP automatic 56.0 MPG
4.2 l/100km
38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km+45%
2004 - 2006

Smart ForFour 2004 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines39.9 MPG
5.9 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines34.9 MPG
6.7 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+15%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines51.1 MPG
4.6 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines42.4 MPG
5.6 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+21%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Smart ForFour 2004 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.1 liters per 100 km or 2% less fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Smart ForFour with automatic transmission consumes around 0.2 litres per 100 km or 4% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Smart ForFour advertised fuel economy is significantly above average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is significantly above average.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.5 petrol engine and manual transmission (Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 109 Hp 109 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Smart ForFour with 1.5 petrol engine and automatic transmission (Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 109 Hp Automatic 109 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.1 liter petrol engine
Smart Forfour 2005 1.1 1.0 64 HP manual 43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km+11%
Smart Forfour 2004 1.1 75 HP manual 42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km
37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km+13%
Smart Forfour 2005 1.1 Automatic 75 HP automatic 44.4 MPG
5.3 l/100km
37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km+17%
1.3 liter petrol engine
Smart Forfour 2004 1.3 95 HP manual 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km+14%
Smart Forfour 2004 1.3 Automatic 95 HP automatic 42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km
34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km+23%
1.5 liter petrol engine
Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 109 Hp 109 HP manual 38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km
34.6 MPG
6.8 l/100km+11%
Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 109 Hp Automatic 109 HP automatic 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
32.2 MPG
7.3 l/100km+26%
Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 122 Hp 122 HP manual 37.3 MPG
6.3 l/100km
35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km+6%
Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 122 Hp Automatic 122 HP automatic 36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km
Smart Forfour 2005 1.5 Brabus 177 HP manual 34.6 MPG
6.8 l/100km
29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km+18%
1.5 liter diesel engine
Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 Cdi 68 Hp 68 HP manual 51.1 MPG
4.6 l/100km
44.4 MPG
5.3 l/100km+15%
Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 Cdi 68 Hp Automatic 68 HP automatic 51.1 MPG
4.6 l/100km
40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km+26%
Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 Cdi 95 Hp 95 HP manual 51.1 MPG
4.6 l/100km
42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km+22%
Smart Forfour 2004 1.5 Cdi 95 Hp Automatic 95 HP automatic 51.1 MPG
4.6 l/100km
42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km+20%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.