Volvo C30 2009 vs Renault Megane 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
| Volvo C30 engine produces 1 HP less power than Renault Megane, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite less power, Volvo C30 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.5 | 4.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.2 l/100km | 5.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo C30 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Volvo C30 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo C30 could require 45 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volvo C30 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1150 km in combined cycle | 1420 km in combined cycle | |
| 1360 km on highway | 1620 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S40, Volvo V50 | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Megane might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo C30 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 Megane 2010 1.5 engine: The engine has many modifications, is sufficiently common and spare parts are available. The fuel consumption/power ratio is good. The fuel injection system can be a problem and the timing belt change interval ... More about Renault Megane 2010 1.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.27 m | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.49 m | |
|
Volvo C30 is smaller. Volvo C30 is 3 cm shorter than the Renault Megane, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo C30 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 251 litres | 405 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1162 litres | |
|
Renault Megane has more luggage space. Volvo C30 has 154 litres less trunk space than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo C30 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Renault Megane, which means Volvo C30 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`780 | 1`845 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Renault Megane scores higher in safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Volvo C30 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Renault Megane, so Volvo C30 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Renault Megane has
| |