Volvo C70 Coupe
Car comparison
Volvo C70 Coupe 2.0 20V TurbovsRenault Megane II Coupe RS 2.0 Turbo 16V
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonRenault Megane II Coupe
RS 2.0 Turbo 16V
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Renault Megane II Coupe RS 2.0 Turbo 16V
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.5 s
- Lightest1,355 kg2,987 lb
- Best power-to-weight165 hp/t123 kW/t6.0 kg/hp
- Lowest city consumption11.5 L/100 km20.5 mpg US24.6 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption7.0 L/100 km33.6 mpg US40.4 mpg UK
- Best overall score55/100
- Best performance score55/100
- Best economy score83/100
- Best practicality score56/100
Volvo C70 Coupe 2.0 20V Turbo
- Fastest top speed245 km/h152 mph
- Most powerful225 hp168 kW
- Highest torque310 Nm229 lb-ft
- Largest trunk403 L
Specification comparison
| Model | VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 225hp168kW | 224hp167kW |
| Torque | 310Nm229lb-ft | 300Nm221lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,450kg3,197lb | 1,355kg2,987lb |
| Gross weight | 1,900kg4,189lb | 1,820kg4,012lb |
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 236 km/h 147 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 95.8s99% target: 243 km/h / 151 mph Calculated | 80.0s99% target: 234 km/h / 145 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.5s | 6.5s |
| 0-200 km/h | 29.7s Calculated | 27.8s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.1s Calculated | 6.2s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | - | 8.8L/100 km26.7mpg US32.1mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 16.4L/100 km14.3mpg US17.2mpg UK | 11.5L/100 km20.5mpg US24.6mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 8.3L/100 km28.3mpg US34.0mpg UK | 7L/100 km33.6mpg US40.4mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.4s Calculated | 14.6s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 155hp/t116kW/t70hp/1000 lb Calculated | 165hp/t123kW/t75hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 214Nm/t143lb-ft/ton Calculated | 221Nm/t148lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | - | 682km424mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,984cc121cu in | 1,998cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,720mm186in | 4,228mm166in |
| Width | 1,820mm72in | - |
| Height | 1,410mm56in | 1,436mm57in |
| Wheelbase | 2,660mm105in | 2,617mm103in |
| Front track | 1,520mm60in | 1,517mm60in |
| Rear track | 1,520mm60in | 1,521mm60in |
| Trunk volume | 403L | 330L |
| Max trunk volume | - | 1,190L |
| Doors | 2 | 3 |
| Seats | 4 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 70L | 60L |
| CO2 emissions | - | 209g/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.
- Volvo C70 Coupe 2.0 20V Turbo: Power / Torque
- Renault Megane II Coupe RS 2.0 Turbo 16V: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | 5,700 rpm | 2,700 rpm | 5,950 rpm |
| RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V | 5,500 rpm | 3,000 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.1 s | 6.2 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.5 s | 6.5 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 29.7 s | 27.8 s |
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 236 km/h 147 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.5 s | 2.4 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.7 s | 6.3 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.1 s | 9.5 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 13.0 s | 12.3 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.4 s | 14.6 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 152 km/h 94 mph | 157 km/h 97 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | 225 hp 168 kW |
| RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V | 224 hp 167 kW |
Volvo C70 Coupe 2.0 20V Turbo has 1 hp more than Renault Megane II Coupe RS 2.0 Turbo 16V.
The biggest power difference is between Renault Megane II Coupe RS 2.0 Turbo 16V and Volvo C70 Coupe 2.0 20V Turbo: 1 hp (1 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | 310 Nm 229 lb-ft |
| RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V | 300 Nm 221 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | 1,450 kg 3,197 lb |
| RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V | 1,355 kg 2,987 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | 245 km/h 152 mph |
| RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V | 236 km/h 147 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | 7.5 s |
| RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V | 6.5 s |
Although Volvo C70 Coupe 2.0 20V Turbo has more power, Renault Megane II Coupe RS 2.0 Turbo 16V is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Renault Megane II Coupe RS 2.0 Turbo 16V and Volvo C70 Coupe 2.0 20V Turbo: 1.0 s.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | 155 hp/t 116 kW/t 6.4 kg/hp |
| RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V | 165 hp/t 123 kW/t 6.0 kg/hp |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | 225 hp 168 kW | 7.5 s | 245 km/h 152 mph |
| RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V | 224 hp 167 kW | 6.5 s | 236 km/h 147 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 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | VolvoC70 Coupe2.0 20V Turbo | RenaultMegane II CoupeRS 2.0 Turbo 16V | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 225 hp 168 kW | 224 hp 167 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 310 Nm 229 lb-ft | 300 Nm 221 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.5 s | 6.5 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 236 km/h 147 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,450 kg 3,197 lb | 1,355 kg 2,987 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | - | 8.8 L/100 km 26.7 mpg US 32.1 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | - | 682 km 424 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | - | 209 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 403 L 14.2 cu ft | 330 L 11.7 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 155 hp/t 116 kW/t 6.4 kg/hp | 165 hp/t 123 kW/t 6.0 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 Megane II Coupe RS 2.0 Turbo 16V |
|---|---|
| Consumption | 8.8 L/100 km26.7 mpg US32.1 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 15.40 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 24.78 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,320 L349 US gal290 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,310 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Volvo C70 Coupe 2.0 20V Turbo
- Has 1 hp more
- Has 10 Nm more
- Has 9 km/h (6 mph) higher top speed
- Has 73 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Heaviest
Renault Megane II Coupe RS 2.0 Turbo 16V
- Is 95 kg lighter
- Is 1.0 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 10 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























