Volvo 940 1995 vs Renault Megane 2006
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 135 HP | 135 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 191 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
| Volvo 940 and Renault Megane have the same engine power, but Volvo 940 torque is 39 NM more than Renault Megane. Volvo 940 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 | 8.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.6 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo 940 consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo 940 could require 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo 940 consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Renault Megane) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Volvo 940) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
| Renault Megane 2006 2.0 engine: The F4R 2.0 engine is a relatively simple and reliable unit, capable of lasting up to 400,000 km with proper maintenance. Its design is straightforward, and service is generally accessible. However, several recurring issues ... More about Renault Megane 2006 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.87 m | 4.21 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.46 m | |
| Volvo 940 is 66 cm longer than the Renault Megane, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo 940 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 470 litres | 330 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1190 litres | |
|
Volvo 940 has more luggage capacity. Volvo 940 has 140 litres more trunk space than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.9 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo 940 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Renault Megane, which means Volvo 940 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`805 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.9/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo 940 has
|
Renault Megane has
| |