Renault Grand Scenic 2009 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
| Renault Grand Scenic engine produces 20 HP less power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Despite less power, Renault Grand Scenic reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 9.4 | |
|
The Renault Grand Scenic is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Renault Grand Scenic consumes 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan, which means that by driving the Renault Grand Scenic over 15,000 km in a year you can save 345 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| Renault Grand Scenic gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 440'000 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 Sharan engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Megane | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Sharan might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Sharan 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Sharan 2000 1.8 engine: The weakest link in this engine is the turbine, whose failure is contributed to by a faulty catalytic converter. The oil pump and chain tensioner also tend to have problems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.56 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.73 m | |
| Renault Grand Scenic is 7 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, 4 cm wider, while the height of Renault Grand Scenic is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 208 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 208 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2063 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Grand Scenic is 0.4 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Sharan, which means Renault Grand Scenic can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`080 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Grand Scenic has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |