Renault Megane 2003 vs Renault Megane 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 115 HP | 205 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 7.1 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane 2016 is a more dynamic driving. Renault Megane 2003 engine produces 90 HP less power than Renault Megane 2016, whereas torque is 128 NM less than Renault Megane 2016. Due to the lower power, Renault Megane 2003 reaches 100 km/h speed 5.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane 2016 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Megane 2003 consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane 2016, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane 2003 could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Megane 2003 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane 2016. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 550 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 25 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Clio, Renault Espace | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Megane 2003 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.21 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Renault Megane 2003 is smaller, but slightly higher. Renault Megane 2003 is 15 cm shorter than the Renault Megane 2016, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Megane 2003 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 330 litres | 384 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1190 litres | 1247 litres | |
|
Renault Megane 2016 has more luggage space. Renault Megane 2003 has 54 litres less trunk space than the Renault Megane 2016. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Megane 2016 (by 57 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane 2003 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Renault Megane 2016, which means Renault Megane 2003 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`775 | 1`924 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 14 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Renault Megane has
| |