Ford KA 1997 vs Renault Clio 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.1 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: | 60 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 105 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 13 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is a more dynamic driving. Ford KA engine produces 15 HP less power than Renault Clio, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Clio is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford KA consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford KA could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford KA consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 42 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Dacia Logan, Renault Kangoo, Renault Twingo, Dacia Sandero | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Clio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.62 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Ford KA is smaller. Ford KA is 19 cm shorter than the Renault Clio, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Ford KA is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 186 litres | 510 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
724 litres | no data | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage space. Ford KA has 324 litres less trunk space than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford KA is 0.5 metres less than that of the Renault Clio, which means Ford KA can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`265 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Renault Clio has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford KA, so Renault Clio quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford KA has
|
Renault Clio has
| |