Renault Clio 2006 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.4 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Renault Clio) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Mazda 2) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 98 HP | 68 HP | |
| Torque: | 127 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 15 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is more dynamic to drive. Renault Clio engine produces 30 HP more power than Mazda 2, but torque is 33 NM less than Mazda 2. Thanks to more power Renault Clio reaches 100 km/h speed 4.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 5.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Clio consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Clio could require 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Clio consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 1120 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 2 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: | 13 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Megane, Renault Modus | Used only for this car | |
| 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: | 3.81 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.54 m | |
|
Renault Clio is smaller. Renault Clio is 11 cm shorter than the Mazda 2, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Clio is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 267 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1035 litres | 1044 litres | |
| Renault Clio has 12 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 2. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 2 (by 9 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Clio is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda 2, which means Renault Clio can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`525 | 1`530 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |