Compare two cars

Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion

Car #1
Make
Model
Variant
Engine
Car #2
Make
Model
Variant
Engine

compare selected cars
2019. -
A - Micro car
hatchback, 5 door
rear
Badges
Production
Vehicle class
Body style
Wheel drive
Safety
2017. -
A - Micro car
hatchback, 5 door
front

Marketing

!function(v,t,o){var a=t.createElement("script");a.src="https://ad.vidverto.io/vidverto/js/aries/v1/invocation.js",a.setAttribute("fetchpriority","high");var r=v.top;r.document.head.appendChild(a),v.self!==v.top&&(v.frameElement.style.cssText="width:0px!important;height:0px!important;"),r.aries=r.aries||{},r.aries.v1=r.aries.v1||{commands:[]};var c=r.aries.v1;c.commands.push((function(){var d=document.getElementById("_vidverto-725dc94bb887f000f0b279c49613751c");d.setAttribute("id",(d.getAttribute("id")+(new Date()).getTime()));var t=v.frameElement||d;c.mount("10285",t,{width:720,height:405})}))}(window,document); */ ?>

Dimensons & Outlines

3614 mm
1646 mm
1544 mm
174 liters
980 liters
35 liters
Length
Width
Height
Boot (min)
Boot (max)
Fuel tank
3595 mm
1595 mm
1485 mm
255 liters
1010 liters
35 liters
2019 Renault Twingo
2017 KIA Picanto

Engine

Renault
1.0 B4D 411
Petrol
3 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Nat. Asp.
999 cc
73 hp
97 Nm
Engine
Fuel
Configuration
Aspiration
Displacement
Power
Torque
Petrol
3 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Nat. Asp.
998 cc
69 hp
95 Nm

Performance (manual gearbox)

manual gearbox - 5 gears
914 kg
14.1 s
163 km/h
5.3 l/100km
3.8 l/100km
4.4 l/100km
100 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
manual gearbox - 5 gears
935 kg
14.3 s
161 km/h
5.6 l/100km
3.7 l/100km
4.4 l/100km
101 g/km

Performance (automatic gearbox)

 
kg
s
km/h
l/100km
l/100km
l/100km
g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
 
kg
s
km/h
l/100km
l/100km
l/100km
g/km

Expenses

9900 EUR
Price from
6800 EUR

Virtual Adviser's™ opinion

Overview

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 hatchback body style within the same 'Micro car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (rear for the Renault and front in the case of the KIA). The first one has a Renault-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 73hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 69hp engine designed by Hyundai.

Safety

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 being a slightly better choice apparently. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the micro car segment, which is generally a misfortune safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Korean car offers a marginal difference of 2% more metal.

Reliability

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Renault does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Renault, as well as KIA, with the same average rating of 4.2 out of 5. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the French car rank it on average as 4.1, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.5 out of 5.

Performance & Fuel economy

Renault is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.2 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 163 kilometers per hour, 2km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 4.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (64 mpg), in combined cycle.


Verdict

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 slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Renault being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - 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. 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, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.

Check a car by its VIN number

Follow us

AutoManiac Instagram

AutoManiac Facebook

AutoManiac database currently covers:

47worldwide automotive brands
1.613different vehicle models
2.331engines
14.590specific cars