Renault Megane 2010 vs Volvo C30 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 11.3 seconds | |
| Renault Megane engine produces 1 HP more power than Volvo C30, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite the higher power, Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo C30 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Renault Megane consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C30, which means that by driving the Renault Megane over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Renault Megane consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C30. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 52 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1420 km in combined cycle | 1150 km in combined cycle | |
| 1620 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 1030 km with real consumption | 1000 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane 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: | 8 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S40, Volvo V50 | |
| 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: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo C30 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 2010 1.5 engine: The engine has many modifications, is sufficiently common and spare parts are available. The fuel consumption/power ratio is good. The fuel injection system can be a problem and the timing belt change interval ... More about Renault Megane 2010 1.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.27 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.49 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Renault Megane is larger. Renault Megane is 3 cm longer than the Volvo C30, 3 cm wider, while the height of Renault Megane is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 405 litres | 251 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1162 litres | no data | |
|
Renault Megane has more luggage capacity. Renault Megane has 154 litres more trunk space than the Volvo C30. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 0.4 metres more than that of the Volvo C30, which means Renault Megane can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`845 | 1`780 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Renault Megane scores higher in safety tests, but Volvo C30 is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Volvo C30 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Renault Megane, so Volvo C30 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 3800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Volvo C30 has
| |