Renault Grand Scenic 2004 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is a more dynamic driving. Renault Grand Scenic engine produces 35 HP less power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 58 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Due to the lower power, Renault Grand Scenic reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 9.4 | |
|
The Renault Grand Scenic is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Renault Grand Scenic consumes 2 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 300 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| Renault Grand Scenic gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 26 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Renault Grand Scenic 2004 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 Grand Scenic 2004 1.6 engine 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: | 4.49 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.64 m | 1.73 m | |
| Renault Grand Scenic is 14 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, width is practically the same , while the height of Renault Grand Scenic is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 513 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 513 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2015 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Grand Scenic is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`120 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Grand Scenic has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |