Ford KA 1997 vs Renault Clio 1998
| 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 | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 105 NM | 93 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.4 seconds | 15 seconds | |
| Ford KA and Renault Clio have the same engine power, but Ford KA torque is 12 NM more than Renault Clio. Ford KA reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Clio is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford KA consumes 0.5 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 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford KA consumes 0.6 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 | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio 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: | 6 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Kangoo, Renault Twingo | |
| 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 | 3.77 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Ford KA is smaller. Ford KA is 15 cm shorter than the Renault Clio, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Ford KA is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 186 litres | 255 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
724 litres | 1035 litres | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage space. Ford KA has 69 litres less trunk space than the Renault Clio. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Clio (by 311 litres). | |||
| 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`420 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Renault Clio has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford KA has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Renault Clio, so Renault Clio quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford KA has
|
Renault Clio has
| |