Renault Megane 2012 vs Smart ForTwo 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.0 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: | 180 HP | 71 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 92 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 seconds | 13.7 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is more dynamic to drive. Renault Megane engine produces 109 HP more power than Smart ForTwo, whereas torque is 208 NM more than Smart ForTwo. Thanks to more power Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 5.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 4.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 5.8 l/100km | |
|
The Smart ForTwo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Megane consumes 3.4 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 510 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Megane consumes 2.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Smart ForTwo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 33 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Grand Espace | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Renault Megane 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 2012 2.0 engine: This engine offers a respectable lifespan for a turbocharged motor but comes with several recurring issues that demand attention. One common problem is oil consumption, which can result from hardened valve seals or, in later ... More about Renault Megane 2012 2.0 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 |
1024 litres | no data | |
|
Renault Megane has more luggage capacity. Renault Megane has 124 litres more trunk space than the Smart ForTwo. | |||
| 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 (kg): | 1`854 | 1`020 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Smart ForTwo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Smart ForTwo, so Smart ForTwo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 7600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Smart ForTwo has
| |