Renault Megane 2008 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 100 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 148 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is more dynamic to drive. Renault Megane engine produces 5 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 3 NM more than Mazda 3. Despite less power, Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
By specification Renault Megane consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane could require 60 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Renault Megane consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 120 mm (4.7 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Renault Megane engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Dacia Duster, Nissan Almera, Dacia Logan, Renault Kangoo | 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. Renault Megane might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Renault Megane 2008 1.6 engine: The Renault K4M 1.6 16V is one of the most durable and well-known engines in its class. It is simple, widely used, and generally not demanding, with many well-maintained examples reaching 400,000–500,000 km. The engine is not especially modern or economical by current standards, but it has a ... More about Renault Megane 2008 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.47 m | |
| Renault Megane is 16 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 6 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 372 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1162 litres | 1360 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, The Mazda 3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 198 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Renault Megane can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`743 kg | 1`770 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`205 kg | 1`180 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 538 kg | 590 kg | |
| Renault Megane load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 10 procentiem less than Mazda 3. Therefore, Mazda 3 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |