Renault Megane 2010 vs Renault Megane 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane 2010 is more dynamic to drive. Renault Megane 2010 engine produces 15 HP more power than Renault Megane 2003, whereas torque is 38 NM more than Renault Megane 2003. Thanks to more power Renault Megane 2010 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane 2003 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Megane 2010 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane 2003, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane 2010 could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Megane 2010 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane 2003. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 420'000 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 2003 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Grand Scenic | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Megane 2003 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Renault Megane 2003 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 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Renault Megane 2010 is larger. Renault Megane 2010 is 13 cm longer than the Renault Megane 2003, 3 cm wider, while the height of Renault Megane 2010 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 211 litres | 190 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 490 litres | |
|
Renault Megane 2010 has more luggage capacity. Renault Megane 2010 has 21 litres more trunk space than the Renault Megane 2003. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane 2010 is 0.7 metres more than that of the Renault Megane 2003, which means Renault Megane 2010 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`865 | 1`775 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Renault Megane 2010 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane 2003 has serious deffects in 170 percent more cases than Renault Megane 2010, so Renault Megane 2010 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8200 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Renault Megane has
| |