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 small family car segment and utilize the same 4-door sedan body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. Both the engines are Renault-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 75hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 86hp one.

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 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 small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle 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 French car offers a considerable difference of 11% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Renault does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Dacia with an average rating of 4.1, and models under the Renault badge with 4.2 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Logan as average reliability-wise, and Fluence is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Romanian car rank it on average as 4.3 out of 5, exactly the same as the other one.

Renault is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.2 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 175 kilometers per hour, 16km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Romanian car, averaging around 3.9 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (72 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 15% 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 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. 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. 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. 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.