Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the mpv segment and utilize the same 5-door MPV body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Renault-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 194hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 6-cylinder, 12-valves 156hp engine designed by Chrysler.

The first thing to look into here would be the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests performed on the two cars. Good thing is that both vehicles got tested, with the Renault displaying significantly better structural stability. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. 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? On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the American car offers a marginal difference of 3% 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. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Renault with an average rating of 4.2, and models under the Chrysler badge with 4.4 out of 5. The same official information place Espace as average reliability-wise, and Voyager is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the French car rank it on average as 3.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.0 out of 5.

Renault is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.4 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 203 kilometers per hour, 23km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the American car, averaging around 10.6 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (27 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 9% difference compared to the French car.

Renault appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. 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 offers much better overall protection, which launches it ahead of the other contender. It all continues in the same direction, with Renault outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Renault. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. 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.