Renault Megane 2004 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| 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: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 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: | 163 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is more dynamic to drive. Renault Megane engine produces 13 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 60 NM more than Mazda CX-5. Thanks to more power Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Renault Megane consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane could require 255 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Grand Espace | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Renault Megane 2004 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 2004 2.0 engine Mazda CX-5 2012 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda CX-5 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.67 m | |
|
Renault Megane is smaller. Renault Megane is 18 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Renault Megane is 27 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 190 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
490 litres | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Renault Megane has 273 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-5 (by 1130 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 1 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Renault Megane can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`870 kg | 1`945 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`415 kg | 1`411 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 455 kg | 534 kg | |
| Renault Megane load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 17 procentiem less than Mazda CX-5. Therefore, Mazda CX-5 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mazda CX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 660 percent more cases than Mazda CX-5, so Mazda CX-5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |