Renault Scenic 2004 vs Ford C-Max 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 10.9 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
| 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 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 8.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
By specification Renault Scenic consumes 0.3 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 45 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Renault Scenic consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 570 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 | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 2.02 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.59 m | |
|
Renault Scenic is smaller, but slightly higher. Renault Scenic is 11 cm shorter than the Ford C-Max, 22 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Scenic is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1840 litres | 1620 litres | |
| Renault Scenic has 120 litres less trunk space than the Ford C-Max. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Scenic (by 220 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`985 | 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
| |