Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 5-door MPV body style within the same 'MPV' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Chrysler and front in the case of the Renault). The first one has a Chrysler-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 6-cylinder, 12-valves 180hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 245hp engine designed by Nissan.

A starting point here would be to take a look at the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests which were performed on both of the cars, with the Renault showing an incomparably higher level of safety offered. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the mpv segment, which is generally a good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the American car offers a considerable difference of 18% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Renault is significantly less fault-prone, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Chrysler with an average rating of 4.4, and models under the Renault badge with 4.1 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Grand Voyager as average reliability-wise, and Grand Espace is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the American car rank it on average as 3.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.3 out of 5.

Renault is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 4.3 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 225 kilometers per hour, 46km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 12.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (23 mpg), in combined cycle.

Renault is apparently more reliable, not too much, but just enough. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the French car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. It all continues in the same direction, with Renault outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Renault. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.