Mitsubishi Lancer 2008 vs Renault Megane 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 143 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 NM | 151 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Lancer is more dynamic to drive. Mitsubishi Lancer engine produces 33 HP more power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 27 NM more than Renault Megane. Thanks to more power Mitsubishi Lancer reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Lancer could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 810 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: | 10 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi ASX | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Megane might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Renault Megane 2006 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Megane 2006 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.50 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.49 m | 1.46 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Lancer is 7 cm longer than the Renault Megane, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Lancer is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 400 litres | 520 litres | |
|
Renault Megane has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Lancer has 120 litres less trunk space than the Renault Megane. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Lancer uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Lancer is 0.7 metres less than that of the Renault Megane, which means Mitsubishi Lancer can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`850 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Lancer has
|
Renault Megane has
| |