Mazda 2 2015 vs Renault Clio 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| 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: | 105 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 2 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 2 engine produces 15 HP more power than Renault Clio, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Renault Clio. Thanks to more power Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.4 | 3.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 4.6 l/100km | 4.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 2 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 2 could require 30 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 2 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 43 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1260 km in combined cycle | 1400 km in combined cycle | |
| 1340 km on highway | 1500 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Clio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 2 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 Clio 2012 1.5 engine: The engine has many modifications, is sufficiently common and spare parts are available. The fuel consumption/power ratio is good. The fuel injection system can be a problem and the timing belt change interval ... More about Renault Clio 2012 1.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.06 m | 4.06 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Mazda 2 is smaller, but higher. Mazda 2 and Renault Clio are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 280 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
950 litres | no data | |
| Mazda 2 has 20 litres less trunk space than the Renault Clio. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 2 is 1.2 metres less than that of the Renault Clio, which means Mazda 2 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`575 | 1`658 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Renault Clio is better rated in child safety tests. The Renault Clio scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 200 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 2 has
|
Renault Clio has
| |