Renault Scenic 2003 vs Ford C-Max 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 145 HP | |
| Torque: | 191 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Ford C-Max is a more dynamic driving. Renault Scenic engine produces 9 HP less power than Ford C-Max, but torque is 6 NM more than Ford C-Max. Due to the lower power, Renault Scenic reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.8 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Scenic consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Scenic could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Scenic consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Clio, Renault Megane | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford Mondeo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Scenic might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Renault Scenic engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.26 m | 4.33 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.60 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Renault Scenic is 7 cm shorter than the Ford C-Max, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Scenic is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1840 litres | 1620 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`955 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Ford C-Max has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Scenic has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Ford C-Max, so Ford C-Max quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 5.0/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Scenic has
|
Ford C-Max has
| |