Renault Grand Scenic 2016 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2010
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Engines: | 1.2 - 1.7 | 1.4 - 2.0 | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 110 - 160 HP | 140 - 200 HP | |
Torque: | 190 - 380 NM | 240 - 350 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 - 15.2 seconds | 8.3 - 10.9 seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.0 - 6.1 | 5.5 - 8.4 | |
Renault Grand Scenic petrol engines consumes on average 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volkswagen Sharan. On average, Renault Grand Scenic equipped with diesel engines consume 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.63 m | 4.85 m | |
Width: | 1.87 m | 1.90 m | |
Height: | 1.66 m | 1.74 m | |
Renault Grand Scenic is smaller. Renault Grand Scenic is 22 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Grand Scenic is 8 cm lower. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 718 litres | 809 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1901 litres | no data | |
Volkswagen Sharan has more luggage space. Renault Grand Scenic has 91 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12 meters | |
The turning circle of the Renault Grand Scenic is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Sharan, which means Renault Grand Scenic can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`243 | ~ 2`337 | |
Safety: | no data | ||
Quality: | no data | low | |
Average price (€): | 13 000 | 14 000 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Renault Grand Scenic has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |