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
2002. - 2006.
M - MPV
MPV, 5 door
front
Badges
Production
Vehicle class
Body style
Wheel drive
Safety
2003. - 2006.
M - MPV
MPV, 5 door
front

Dimensons & Outlines

4493 mm
1748 mm
1609 mm
422 liters
1632 liters
55 liters
Length
Width
Height
Boot (min)
Boot (max)
Fuel tank
4259 mm
1805 mm
1620 mm
430 liters
1840 liters
60 liters
2002 KIA Carens
2003 Renault Scenic

Engine

Mazda / KIA
1.8 FP HP
Petrol
4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Nat. Asp.
1793 cc
126 hp
162 Nm
Engine
Fuel
Configuration
Aspiration
Displacement
Power
Torque
Renault
1.6 K4M
Petrol
4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Nat. Asp.
1598 cc
112 hp
151 Nm

Performance (manual gearbox)

manual gearbox - 5 gears
1362 kg
12.0 s
177 km/h
10.2 l/100km
6.8 l/100km
8.1 l/100km
191 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
manual gearbox - 5 gears
1295 kg
12.5 s
185 km/h
9.3 l/100km
6.0 l/100km
7.2 l/100km
172 g/km

Performance (automatic gearbox)

automatic - 4 gears
1385 kg
15.0 s
170 km/h
12.3 l/100km
7.2 l/100km
9.1 l/100km
215 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
automatic - 4 gears
1345 kg
s
km/h
l/100km
l/100km
l/100km
g/km

Expenses

1000 EUR
Price from
750 EUR

Virtual Adviser's™ opinion

Overview

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 Mazda-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 126hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 112hp engine designed by Renault.

Safety

The fact that the Renault got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, puts it sky-high safety-wise, in my eyes at least. 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, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Korean car offers a marginal difference of 5% 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 KIA with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Renault badge with 4.1 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 Korean car rank it on average as 3.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.8 out of 5.

Performance & Fuel economy

KIA is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.5 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 177 kilometers per hour, 8km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the French car, averaging around 7.2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (39 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 13% difference compared to the Korean car.


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 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. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but 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 more than 12.000 different ones in our database.

Check a car by its VIN number