Renault Megane 2016 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Nissan Pulsar is a more dynamic driving. Renault Megane engine produces 20 HP less power than Nissan Pulsar, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Nissan Pulsar. Due to the lower power, Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.7 | 3.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.6 l/100km | 5.1 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Megane consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane could require 15 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 Nissan Pulsar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1270 km in combined cycle | 1270 km in combined cycle | |
| 1380 km on highway | 1390 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 900 km with real consumption | ||
| Ground clearance: | 145 mm (5.7 inches) | 156 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan Pulsar 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. Note, however, that this Nissan Pulsar version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 16 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Renault Megane 2016 1.5 engine: The engine has undergone numerous modifications and is relatively commonplace, with a plentiful supply of spare parts. It exhibits an optimal fuel consumption/power ratio. However, the fuel injection system ... More about Renault Megane 2016 1.5 engine Nissan Pulsar 2014 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 Nissan Pulsar 2014 1.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.52 m | |
| Renault Megane is 3 cm shorter than the Nissan Pulsar, 5 cm wider, while the height of Renault Megane is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 384 litres | 385 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1247 litres | 1395 litres | |
| Renault Megane has 1 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Pulsar. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Pulsar (by 148 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 1.6 metres more than that of the Nissan Pulsar, which means Renault Megane can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`841 | 1`785 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Renault Megane has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Pulsar has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Renault Megane, so Renault Megane quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 200 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Nissan Pulsar has
| |