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. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. 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, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the French car offers a considerable difference of 21% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Renault does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Renault, as well as KIA, with the same average rating of 4.2 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Scenic as average reliability-wise, and Carens is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the French car rank it on average as 3.9, 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 being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say KIA. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.