Renault Clio 2003 vs Volkswagen Golf 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 148 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Renault Clio is more dynamic to drive. Renault Clio engine produces 8 HP more power than Volkswagen Golf, the torque is the same for both cars. Thanks to more power Renault Clio reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Clio is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Clio consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf, which means that by driving the Renault Clio over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Clio consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 470'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volkswagen Golf engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 26 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster | Used also on Seat Leon | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Golf 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 2003 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 Clio 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.81 m | 4.20 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Renault Clio is smaller. Renault Clio is 39 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Golf, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Clio is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 255 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1035 litres | 1305 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Golf has more luggage space. Renault Clio has 95 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Golf. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Golf (by 270 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Clio is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Golf. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`515 | 1`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volkswagen Golf has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Clio has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf, so Volkswagen Golf quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 5.0/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Clio has
|
Volkswagen Golf has
| |