Renault Scenic 2012 vs Ford C-Max 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| 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: | 130 HP | 182 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Ford C-Max is a more dynamic driving. Renault Scenic engine produces 52 HP less power than Ford C-Max, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Ford C-Max. Due to the lower power, Renault Scenic reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Scenic is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Renault Scenic consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Scenic could require 120 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Renault Scenic consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Megane, Renault Grand Scenic | Used also on Ford Focus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Scenic might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.64 m | 1.63 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Renault Scenic is 1 cm shorter than the Ford C-Max, 2 cm wider, while the height of Renault Scenic is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 437 litres | 432 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1870 litres | 1684 litres | |
| Renault Scenic has 5 litres more trunk space than the Ford C-Max. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Scenic (by 186 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Scenic is 0.1 metres less than that of the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`945 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Renault Scenic scores higher in safety tests, but Ford C-Max is better rated in child safety tests. The Renault Scenic scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Ford C-Max has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Scenic has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Ford C-Max, so Ford C-Max quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6600 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Scenic has
|
Ford C-Max has
| |