Renault Megane 2012 vs Smart ForTwo 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 0.8 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 54 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 130 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 16.8 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is more dynamic to drive. Renault Megane engine produces 76 HP more power than Smart ForTwo, whereas torque is 190 NM more than Smart ForTwo. Thanks to more power Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.0 | 3.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 4.4 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Megane consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForTwo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Megane consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForTwo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 33 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1500 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1660 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 1030 km with real consumption | 740 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. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Renault Megane) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Smart ForTwo) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
| Renault Megane 2012 1.6 engine: This 1.6-liter diesel engine is a joint development by Renault-Nissan engineers. It features a cast-iron block, a 16-valve cylinder head with hydraulic lifters, a chain-driven timing system, and a Bosch Common ... More about Renault Megane 2012 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 2.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.56 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.57 m | |
|
Renault Megane is larger, but lower. Renault Megane is 160 cm longer than the Smart ForTwo, 25 cm wider, while the height of Renault Megane is 14 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 344 litres | 220 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
991 litres | 340 litres | |
|
Renault Megane has more luggage capacity. Renault Megane has 124 litres more trunk space than the Smart ForTwo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Megane (by 651 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 8.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 2.1 metres more than that of the Smart ForTwo, which means Renault Megane can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`849 kg | 1`050 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`320 kg | 780 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 529 kg | 270 kg | |
| Renault Megane load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 49 procentiem more than Smart ForTwo. Therefore, Renault Megane is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 6200 | 6000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Smart ForTwo has
| |