Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107HP manual vs Ford Mondeo II Hatchback 1.6 16V 95HP manual

Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107HP manual

Source: wikipedia.org Rudolf Stricker Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

19 reasons for

Renault Laguna I Hatchback, model available from 1993 to 2001.
It has 1.6 i 16V 107HP petrol engine produced from 1997 to 2000.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 5 speed gearbox.

7 reasons for

Ford Mondeo II Hatchback, model available from 1993 to 2001.
It has 1.6 16V 95HP petrol engine produced from 1999 to 2001.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 5 speed gearbox.

Ford Mondeo II Hatchback 1.6 16V 95HP manual
Renault

19 reasons for Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107KM manual in comparison to Ford Mondeo II Hatchback 1.6 16V 95HP manual

Reasons for
135

Maximal power

107 > 95 hp
The horsepower is a parameter that most of drivers pay the biggest attention to. In this case, it is the Renault Laguna I Hatchback which has by 13 percent horsepower more than the Ford, which makes this vehicle a bit faster. Because of more horsepower the Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107HP manual should also provide slightly more efficiency in specific gears.
112

Average consumption

7.4 > 7.8 l
The Renault consumes 0.4 l fewer fuel in the combined cycle than the Ford Mondeo II Hatchback. The Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107HP manual, which is classified in „large family cars” class consumes by 0.3 l less fuel than the average in its segment. The average fuel consumption in this class in the combined cycle is 7.7 l.
59

Maximal torque

148 > 142 Nm
The Renault Laguna I Hatchback has 4 % more torque in relation to the Ford. Although most of people do not take into account the maximum torque when buying a vehicle, it presents the best how a car is speeding up. As far as these two vehicles are concerned the difference is insensible so it probably will not make a real difference in feeling of driving a car.
56

Urban consumption

9.9 > 11.1 l
The fuel consumption of the Renault is 1.2 l better than the Ford Mondeo II Hatchback 1.6 16V 95HP manual. Despite the difference is insensible, in the long term it can cause that the vehicle would be significantly cheper to run.
50

Acceleration 0-100 km/h

11.5 > 12.7 s
The Ford Mondeo II Hatchback speeds up relatively slower compared to the Renault. The difference in the amount of 9 % is not really significant and it should not be vitally taken into as important for choosing one of presented vehicles.
38

Trunk capacity

451 > 448 l
The boot of the Renault Laguna I Hatchback is only 3 liters bigger than the Ford Mondeo II Hatchback 1.6 16V 95HP manual. However, the difference is not significant and it would be fair to say that both vehicles have more of less the same boot size.
33

Top speed

195 > 185 km/h
The top velocity possible to be reached by the ​​Renault is greater in comparison to this of the Ford Mondeo II Hatchback 1.6 16V 95HP manual by 5, which allows the Renault to cover faster large stretches of highway. The difference at the level of 10 kilometers per hour is little and will be negligible in everyday driving.
24

Extra-urban consumption

5.7 > 6 l
22

Width

1,753 > 1,749 mm
Width of a car influences on room in the cabin and also stability on road. The width of the Renault Laguna I Hatchback is larger only by 4 mm in comparison to the Ford Mondeo II Hatchback and is not really worth considering. The medium for the „middle” class equals to around 1,764 mm and is by 1 % bigger than the same feature of the Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107HP manual.
19

Range

917 > 782 km
19

Fuel tank

67 > 60 l
The Ford Mondeo II Hatchback is worst that the Renault in the category of fuel tank size. The Renault Laguna I Hatchback is able to take by 7 l more fuel than its rival.
12

Urban range

667 > 560 km
11

Extra-urban range

1,158 > 1,017 km
6

Length

4,511 > 4,481 mm
The Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107HP manual is 30 millimeters longer than the Ford Mondeo II Hatchback. The length of the vehicle is significant when it comes to travelling comfort and space in the boot. The Renault Laguna I probably will be offering to it's passangers more room for legs. At the same time the Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107HP manual will be better driven but the Ford Mondeo II will be a little easier to park due to shorter length .
1

Height

1,435 > 1,424 mm
If you are a tall driver or you happen to carry in the trunk stuffs of big size, the Renault Laguna I Hatchback, which is by 11 millimeters higher than the Ford, is better choice for you. However, compared cars do not vary much in its height and it should not be much perceptible.
1

Tire width

195 > 185 mm
0

Payload

1,838 > 1,801 kg
0

Tire diameter

15 > 14 ″
0

Curb weight

1,275 > 1,242 kg

Ford

7 reasons for Ford Mondeo II Hatchback 1.6 16V 95KM manual in comparison to Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107HP manual

Reasons for
33

Trunk capacity with seats down

964 > 886 l
30

Maximal torque RPM

3,500 > 3,750 revolutions/minute
The rotational speed where the maximum torque is reached tells us how fast an engine reaches its full efficiency with growth in rotational speed. The lower rmp or the longer range at which the torque has the highest value, the more the engine is flexible and a sensation of acceleration is felt faster.
15

Wheelbase

2,708 > 2,670 mm
Ford Mondeo II Hatchback has 38 mm longer wheelbase when compared to the Renault Laguna I Hatchback. A longer wheelbase provides more stable and comfortable ride, especially when driving fast. It also provides more storage space. However, cars with a longer wheelbase are not as maneuverable as those with a shorter length between its axles.
8

Maximum load capacity

565 > 555 kg
4

Rear track

1,484 > 1,454 mm
0

Maximal power RPM

5,250 > 5,750 revolutions/minute
0

Front track

1,503 > 1,481 mm

Cars specifications

Renault Laguna I Hatchback 1.6 i 16V 107HP manual Ford Mondeo II Hatchback 1.6 16V 95HP manual
    Price range popular popular
    Model release date 1993 1993
    Facelifting no no
    Class D D
    Payload 1,838 kg 1,801 kg
By using this site, you agree to the storage and use of cookie files. OK