Peugeot 301 2017 vs Renault Megane 2012
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 151 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is a more dynamic driving. Peugeot 301 engine produces 5 HP more power than Renault Megane, but torque is 1 NM less than Renault Megane. Despite the higher power, Peugeot 301 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.9 | |
| Peugeot 301 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that by driving the Peugeot 301 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1090 km on highway | ||
| 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. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 142 mm (5.6 inches) | 120 mm (4.7 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Peugeot 301 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Peugeot 301 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Citroen C4, Citroen C-Elysee, Peugeot 408 | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Peugeot 301 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 Megane 2012 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 2012 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.47 m | |
| Peugeot 301 is 14 cm longer than the Renault Megane, 6 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 506 litres | 405 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1332 litres | 1162 litres | |
|
Peugeot 301 has more luggage capacity. Peugeot 301 has 101 litres more trunk space than the Renault Megane. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Peugeot 301 (by 170 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`585 | 1`762 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Peugeot 301 has
|
Renault Megane has
| |