Renault Grand Scenic 2016 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is a more dynamic driving. Renault Grand Scenic engine produces 20 HP less power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Due to the lower power, Renault Grand Scenic reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 | 5.9 | |
|
The Renault Grand Scenic is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Renault Grand Scenic consumes 1.1 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 165 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 53 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 1180 km in combined cycle | |
| 1230 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| Volkswagen Sharan gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Qashqai, Renault Scenic, Renault Megane | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Audi A3, Skoda Superb | |
| 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. | |||
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 | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan has more luggage space. Renault Grand Scenic has 91 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Grand Scenic is 0.5 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`320 | 2`370 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 13 000 | 14 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Grand Scenic has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |