Renault Megane 2003 vs Audi Q3 2014
| Body: | Cabrio | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 191 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 7.6 seconds | |
|
Audi Q3 is a more dynamic driving. Renault Megane engine produces 44 HP less power than Audi Q3, whereas torque is 89 NM less than Audi Q3. Due to the lower power, Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 3.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The Audi Q3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Megane consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane could require 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Megane consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 1120 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q3 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 120 mm (4.7 inches) | 173 mm (6.8 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Audi Q3 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. | |||
| Renault Megane 2003 2.0 engine: The F4R 2.0 engine is a relatively simple and reliable unit, capable of lasting up to 400,000 km with proper maintenance. Its design is straightforward, and service is generally accessible. However, several recurring issues ... More about Renault Megane 2003 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Renault Megane is smaller. Renault Megane is 3 cm shorter than the Audi Q3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Megane is 21 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 190 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
490 litres | 1365 litres | |
|
Audi Q3 has more luggage space. Renault Megane has 270 litres less trunk space than the Audi Q3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi Q3 (by 875 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 1.6 metres less than that of the Audi Q3, which means Renault Megane can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`865 | 2`140 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Audi Q3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 1105 percent more cases than Audi Q3, so Audi Q3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 16 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Audi Q3 has
| |