Renault Grand Scenic 2016 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
| Renault Grand Scenic engine produces 10 HP more power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Volkswagen Sharan. Despite the higher power, Renault Grand Scenic reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 5.5 | |
|
The Renault Grand Scenic is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Renault Grand Scenic consumes 0.6 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 90 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 53 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1080 km in combined cycle | 1270 km in combined cycle | |
| Volkswagen Sharan gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 8 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 12 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Sharan 2010 2.0 engine: The engine is very durable and can last a long time with proper maintenance, and is also quite economical for its power. There may be some problems with the turbine geometry. It is important to use good ... More about Volkswagen Sharan 2010 2.0 engine | |||
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. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 189 litres | 809 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 189 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 809 litres | |
| 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`367 | 2`340 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 12 000 | 13 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Grand Scenic has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |