Audi TT 1999 vs Renault Megane 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Audi TT) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Renault Megane) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 235 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is more dynamic to drive. Audi TT engine produces 60 HP more power than Renault Megane, but torque is 65 NM less than Renault Megane. Thanks to more power Audi TT reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi TT consumes 2.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi TT could require 405 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi TT consumes 3.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 1330 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 1010 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Ibiza, Seat Leon | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Suzuki Grand Vitara | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Audi TT might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Audi TT 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. | |||
| Audi TT 1999 1.8 engine: The engine is considered reliable, with a lifespan from 300,000 km.
The primary causes of unstable operation include air leaks through the crankcase ventilation system, throttle body malfunctions, idle air ... More about Audi TT 1999 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.04 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Audi TT is smaller. Audi TT is 32 cm shorter than the Renault Megane, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Audi TT is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 190 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 490 litres | |
|
Audi TT has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The Renault Megane may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi TT is 0.2 metres less than that of the Renault Megane. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`640 kg | 1`880 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`340 kg | 1`425 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 300 kg | 455 kg | |
| Audi TT load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 52 procentiem less than Renault Megane. Therefore, Renault Megane is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 90 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi TT has
|
Renault Megane has
| |