Volvo V40 1996 vs Renault Megane 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 107 HP | |
| Torque: | 183 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V40 engine produces 33 HP more power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 35 NM more than Renault Megane. Thanks to more power Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo V40 could require 270 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 830 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo V40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo S40 | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | |
| 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: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo V40 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 2000 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Megane 2000 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.44 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.42 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volvo V40 is 4 cm longer than the Renault Megane, 2 cm wider, while the height of Volvo V40 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 485 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1421 litres | 1600 litres | |
|
Renault Megane has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Volvo V40 has 72 litres less trunk space than the Renault Megane. This could mean that the Volvo V40 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Megane (by 179 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Renault Megane. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`740 | 1`695 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Renault Megane has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V40 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Renault Megane, so Renault Megane quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Renault Megane has
| |