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 Renault and front in the case of the KIA). The first one has a Nissan-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 140hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 110hp engine designed by Mazda.

The fact that the Renault got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, offers a slight advantage, as the 4-star rating is better than none. 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, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the French car offers a considerable difference of 21% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Renault does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Renault with an average rating of 4.1, and models under the KIA badge with 4.6 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Scenic as average reliability-wise, and Carens 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 4.2, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 5.0 out of 5.

KIA is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.6 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 185 kilometers per hour, 5km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Korean car, averaging around 8.6 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (33 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 10% difference compared to the French car.

KIA 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 beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. From there things take a different direction, with KIA offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! At the end, as much as I'd like to give you a winner here, it's simply a pure tie if you ask me. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.