Renault Megane 2009 vs Smart ForTwo 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.0 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: | 110 HP | 71 HP | |
| Torque: | 151 NM | 92 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 13.3 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is more dynamic to drive. Renault Megane engine produces 39 HP more power than Smart ForTwo, whereas torque is 59 NM more than Smart ForTwo. Thanks to more power Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 4.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Megane consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForTwo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane could require 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Megane consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForTwo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 33 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 860 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1070 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 540 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Renault Megane) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Smart ForTwo) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 25 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Megane might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 2.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.56 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.54 m | |
|
Renault Megane is larger, but lower. Renault Megane is 160 cm longer than the Smart ForTwo, 24 cm wider, while the height of Renault Megane is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 344 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
377 litres | no data | |
|
Renault Megane has more luggage capacity. Renault Megane has 124 litres more trunk space than the Smart ForTwo. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.95 meters | 8.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 2.15 metres more than that of the Smart ForTwo, which means Renault Megane can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`728 | 1`020 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Smart ForTwo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Smart ForTwo, so Smart ForTwo quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Smart ForTwo has
| |