Renault Megane 2000 vs Volvo V40 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.9 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 107 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 148 NM | 183 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Renault Megane engine produces 33 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 35 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Megane consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that by driving the Renault Megane over 15,000 km in a year you can save 270 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Megane consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 460'000 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 Volvo V40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 26 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | Used also on Volvo S40 | |
| 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: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo V40 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 2000 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Megane 2000 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.44 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.41 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Renault Megane is 4 cm shorter than the Volvo V40, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Megane is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 485 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1600 litres | 1421 litres | |
|
Renault Megane has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Renault Megane has 72 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The Volvo V40 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 Renault Megane (by 179 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 0.1 metres more than that of the Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`695 | 1`740 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Renault Megane has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V40 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Renault Megane, so Renault Megane quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |