Renault Scenic 2004 vs Ford C-Max 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 145 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Renault Scenic is more dynamic to drive. Renault Scenic engine produces 18 HP more power than Ford C-Max, whereas torque is 85 NM more than Ford C-Max. Thanks to more power Renault Scenic reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. 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. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Scenic consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Megane, Renault Grand Espace | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford Mondeo | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Renault Scenic 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 Scenic 2004 2.0 engine: This engine offers a respectable lifespan for a turbocharged motor but comes with several recurring issues that demand attention. One common problem is oil consumption, which can result from hardened valve seals or, in later ... More about Renault Scenic 2004 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.26 m | 4.33 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.60 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Renault Scenic is 7 cm shorter than the Ford C-Max, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Scenic is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1840 litres | 1620 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`980 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Ford C-Max has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Scenic has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Ford C-Max, so Ford C-Max quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 5.4/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Scenic has
|
Ford C-Max has
| |