Renault Megane 2005 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: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| 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: | 130 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Renault Megane engine produces 20 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.3 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
By specification Renault Megane consumes 1.2 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 180 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Renault Megane consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1210 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 950 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Suzuki Grand Vitara | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.71 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 31 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 190 litres | 505 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 315 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: | no data | 11.2 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`880 kg | 2`035 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`425 kg | 1`445 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 455 kg | 590 kg | |
| Renault Megane load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 30 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
| |