Peugeot 206 2002 vs Renault Clio 2001
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.1 - 2.0 | 1.1 - 1.9 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 - 110 HP | 60 - 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 94 - 240 NM | 93 - 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.4 - 15.9 seconds | 9.6 - 15 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.3 - 7.1 | 4.2 - 7.4 | |
|
Peugeot 206 petrol engines consumes on average 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than Renault Clio. On average, Peugeot 206 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Clio. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.82 m | 3.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Peugeot 206 is 1 cm longer than the Renault Clio, 1 cm wider, while the height of Peugeot 206 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 210 litres | 510 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
992 litres | no data | |
|
Renault Clio has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Peugeot 206 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.9 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Peugeot 206 is 0.8 metres less than that of the Renault Clio, which means Peugeot 206 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 1`521 kg | ~ 1`495 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 1`055 kg | ~ 950 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 466 kg | ~ 545 kg | |
| Peugeot 206 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 17 procentiem less than Renault Clio. Therefore, Renault Clio is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Peugeot 206 has
|
Renault Clio has
| |