Renault Espace IV (PHASE II)
Car comparison
Renault Espace IV (PHASE II) 3.5 V6vsFord C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonFord C-MAX II
1.6 EcoBoost
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
- Lightest1,310 kg2,888 lb
- Best power-to-weight139 hp/t104 kW/t7.2 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption7.8 L/100 km30.2 mpg US36.2 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption5.3 L/100 km44.4 mpg US53.3 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions144 g/km
- Best estimated range887 km551 mi
- Largest trunk432 L
- Best economy score90/100
- Best practicality score84/100
Renault Espace IV (PHASE II) 3.5 V6
- Quickest 0-100 km/h8.1 s
- Fastest top speed225 km/h140 mph
- Most powerful241 hp180 kW
- Highest torque330 Nm243 lb-ft
- Best overall score59/100
- Best performance score49/100
Specification comparison
| Model | RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 241hp180kW | 182hp136kW |
| Torque | 330Nm243lb-ft | 240Nm177lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,845kg4,068lb | 1,310kg2,888lb |
| Gross weight | 2,545kg5,611lb | 1,900kg4,189lb |
| Top speed | 225 km/h 140 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 109.6s99% target: 223 km/h / 138 mph Calculated | 88.3s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 8.1s | 8.5s |
| 0-200 km/h | 43.0s Calculated | 44.3s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.6s Calculated | 8.0s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 12L/100 km19.6mpg US23.5mpg UK | 6.2L/100 km37.9mpg US45.6mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 17.2L/100 km13.7mpg US16.4mpg UK | 7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 9L/100 km26.1mpg US31.4mpg UK | 5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.9s Calculated | 16.2s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 131hp/t97kW/t59hp/1000 lb Calculated | 139hp/t104kW/t63hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 179Nm/t120lb-ft/ton Calculated | 183Nm/t123lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 692km430mi Calculated | 887km551mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 3,498cc213cu in | 1,596cc97cu in |
| Length | 4,656mm183in | 4,380mm172in |
| Width | 1,860mm73in | 1,828mm72in |
| Height | 1,728mm68in | 1,626mm64in |
| Wheelbase | 2,803mm110in | 2,648mm104in |
| Front track | 1,574mm62in | 1,559mm61in |
| Rear track | 1,556mm61in | 1,569mm62in |
| Ground clearance | 120mm5in | - |
| Trunk volume | 291L | 432L |
| Max trunk volume | 2,860L | 1,723L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 7 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 83L | 55L |
| CO2 emissions | 284g/km | 144g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Renault Espace IV (PHASE II) 3.5 V6: Power / Torque
- Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 6,000 rpm | 3,600 rpm | 6,250 rpm |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 5,700 rpm | 1,600-5,000 rpm | 5,950 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.6 s | 8.0 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 8.1 s | 8.5 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 43.0 s | 44.3 s |
| Top speed | 225 km/h 140 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.5 s | 2.7 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.7 s | 7.0 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.3 s | 10.6 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 13.3 s | 13.6 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.9 s | 16.2 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 142 km/h 88 mph | 143 km/h 89 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 241 hp 180 kW |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 182 hp 136 kW |
Renault Espace IV (PHASE II) 3.5 V6 has 59 hp more than Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost.
The biggest power difference is between Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost and Renault Espace IV (PHASE II) 3.5 V6: 59 hp (44 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 330 Nm 243 lb-ft |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 1,845 kg 4,068 lb |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 1,310 kg 2,888 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 225 km/h 140 mph |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 217 km/h 135 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 8.1 s |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 8.5 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Renault Espace IV (PHASE II) 3.5 V6 and Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost: 0.4 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 12.0 L/100 km 19.6 mpg US 23.5 mpg UK |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost and Renault Espace IV (PHASE II) 3.5 V6: 5.8 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 131 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 139 hp/t 104 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 692 km 430 mi |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 887 km 551 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 241 hp 180 kW | 8.1 s | 225 km/h 140 mph |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 182 hp 136 kW | 8.5 s | 217 km/h 135 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 |
| 12.0 L/100 km 19.6 mpg US 23.5 mpg UK | ||||||
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
| 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | ||||||
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 12.0 L/100 km 19.6 mpg US 23.5 mpg UK | 8.1 s |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | 8.5 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | 131 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp | 12.0 L/100 km 19.6 mpg US 23.5 mpg UK |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 139 hp/t 104 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | RenaultEspace IV (PHASE II)3.5 V6 | FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 241 hp 180 kW | 182 hp 136 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 330 Nm 243 lb-ft | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 8.1 s | 8.5 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 225 km/h 140 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,845 kg 4,068 lb | 1,310 kg 2,888 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 12.0 L/100 km 19.6 mpg US 23.5 mpg UK | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 692 km 430 mi | 887 km 551 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 284 g/km | 144 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 291 L 10.3 cu ft | 432 L 15.3 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 131 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp | 139 hp/t 104 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Renault Espace IV (PHASE II) 3.5 V6 | Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 12 L/100 km19.6 mpg US23.5 mpg UK | 6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 21.00 LC100 km | 10.85 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 33.80 LC100 mi | 17.46 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,800 L476 US gal396 UK gal | 930 L246 US gal205 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 3,150 LC/year | 1,628 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Renault Espace IV (PHASE II) 3.5 V6
- Has 59 hp more
- Has 90 Nm more
- Is 0.4 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 8 km/h (5 mph) higher top speed
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
Cons
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Smallest trunk
- Highest CO2 emissions
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
- Is 535 kg lighter
- Uses 5.8 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 8 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 195 km (121 mi) more estimated range
- Has 141 L more trunk volume
- Emits 140 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























