Chrysler Grand Voyager 1999 vs Renault Espace 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.2 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: | 114 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 262 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.8 seconds | 14.5 seconds | |
|
Chrysler Grand Voyager is more dynamic to drive. Chrysler Grand Voyager engine produces 1 HP less power than Renault Espace, but torque is 12 NM more than Renault Espace. Despite less power, Chrysler Grand Voyager reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Espace is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Espace, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Grand Voyager could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Espace. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 76 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 860 km in combined cycle | 950 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 1160 km on highway | ||
| 890 km with real consumption | 960 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Espace gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Voyager, Jeep Cherokee | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chrysler Grand Voyager might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.07 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.92 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.77 m | |
|
Chrysler Grand Voyager is larger, but slightly lower. Chrysler Grand Voyager is 55 cm longer than the Renault Espace, 11 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Grand Voyager is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 275 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 275 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2850 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler Grand Voyager is 0.6 metres more than that of the Renault Espace, which means Chrysler Grand Voyager can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`500 | 2`510 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Grand Voyager has
|
Renault Espace has
| |