Ford C-Max 2004 vs Renault Scenic 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 145 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 191 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Ford C-Max is more dynamic to drive. Ford C-Max engine produces 9 HP more power than Renault Scenic, but torque is 6 NM less than Renault Scenic. Thanks to more power Ford C-Max reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford C-Max consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic, which means that by driving the Ford C-Max over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford C-Max consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Scenic. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 470'000 km | 370'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Ford C-Max engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford Mondeo | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Megane, 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 Scenic might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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. | |||
| Renault Scenic 2003 2.0 engine: The F4R 2.0 engine is a relatively simple and reliable unit, capable of lasting up to 400,000 km with proper maintenance. Its design is straightforward, and service is generally accessible. However, several recurring issues ... More about Renault Scenic 2003 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.33 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.60 m | 1.62 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford C-Max is 7 cm longer than the Renault Scenic, 2 cm wider, while the height of Ford C-Max is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1620 litres | 1840 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| 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 (kg): | no data | 1`955 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| 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 (€): | 1600 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.6/10 | 5.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford C-Max has
|
Renault Scenic has
| |