2009 Renault Megane 1.6 from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Summary:

Good car with an underpowered engine

Faults:

Nothing important.

General Comments:

On positive side, it's a very nice car, especially the one I bought. Had hands free opening and starting the car, parking sensors etc etc.

On negative side, for almost 3 years I was not that happy with the car. Something was wrong, and from beginning I suspected its gear box. 6 gears for a 1.6 engine is just too much, and my gas consumption was very bad, especially because I had an Opel Astra 1.6 petrol before, and all I wanted is to have (if nothing else) the same consumption.

Open road consumption was at best 7l/100km. If you like speed, forget about fuel economy. This thing drinks 20L if you go 180 km/h (and that's almost near maximum speed).

In the city, things get even worse. Initially I had over 12L/100km, and after ONE YEAR of learning how to drive this thing, I made it to consume 10 to 11L/100 km. The gear box is the reason if you ask me.

Finally I had very bad accident with the car (total damage). Airbag didn't open, and I had my seat belt on. Renault took the car for a check, and informed me that there is nothing wrong with the airbag. Funny thing is that I was hit from the side and pushed off the road, flew in around a 10 meter hole, and hit with the front of the car into the ground.

It is possible that radiation from Saturn and Mars somehow messed up my airbag, but if you ask me, it's Renault's fault.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 12th April, 2012

2009 Renault Megane Dynamique 1.5 dCi turbo diesel from UK and Ireland

Faults:

I bought a pre-registered Renault Megane 1.5 diesel car with 700 miles.

This car is advertised as getting 55 MPG urban, 70 MPG extra-urban, and 64 combined. I have contacted Renault UK as I can only achieve at the very best 42 MPG. Something is quite obviously wrong here; either this car is a rogue or the company is mis-selling this vehicle as being economic.

What comparisons have I based this on? A 52 plate 1.5 Renault Megane, which achieved over 60 MPG, a Citroen C4 Grand Picasso 1.6 diesel, which gets 50 MPG, and a Seat Toledo 1.9 TDI, which gets 58 MPG. The trip from home to work, which has provided the comparison is 28 miles, a mixture of town traffic, country A road, dual carriageway and motorway.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 9th February, 2011

24th Jun 2011, 18:22

You have to wait a few thousand miles for the engine to break in before you can accurately measure fuel consumption...

12th Apr 2012, 12:09

I had 1.6 Petrol Renault Megane III fully equipped, and I had a similar experience, BUT I know why it consumes that much. Read till the end for my conclusion, or if you want to skip it, here is the short version.

The 1.6 is too weak an engine, especially if you have a 6 speed gearbox.

For me too, what Renault claim consumption is and what I could get were 2 worlds apart.

For almost 3 years I was driving this car, and I was going CRAZY with the fuel consumption. In the city I was happy if I could get 11l/100km. It took me almost 1 year to get to 7L/100k consumption on the open road. Very careful driving and not much speed. If you go 110km/h or 130km/h, then forget about economy. This thing would drink 9 or 10 liters or more, depending how fast you want to go.

In the city, same issues. Initially my consumption was over 12l/100km, then after A LOT of practice and careful driving, I could do 11 (sometime 10) in the city. Try to drive NORMALLY and forget about economy.

If you ask me reason for so high consumption is the gear box. 6 gears on a 1.6 is just too much. Avoid this engine if you like your wallet. Not fast enough, and drinks petrol like crazy.

35.000+ km later I had my first ever accident with the car. Flew into a 10 meter deep hole (guy push me from the road). Air bag didn't open, but luckily we landed on soft land. When I went to complain to Renault, they took the car for a test, and then I got their "perfect" answer. Nothing is wrong with the airbags. The fact that I totaled the car, and that I hit with my head on the steering wheel is not relevant. And yes, I always use a seat belt, and in that moment I had my wife and 2 year old kid in the car, so I was not driving crazy.

Anyway, since the car was totaled and I got my insurance, I went and bought a new car. Since Renault gave me the best (but REALLY the best) offer that I just couldn't reject, I bought a 1.9 diesel station wagon.

WHAT a difference. The 6 gear gearbox is perfect for this engine and consumption is very low. If I drive carefully I get 5l/100km (or even less) open road. In the city maximally I get 9l/100km.

Even if you drive fast, 130 km/h and over on the open road, average consumption is below 6.4.

So as a conclusion. Buy a weak engine with a 6 speed gearbox, and you are doomed.

In reply to 12th Apr 2012, 12:09

13th Nov 2021, 08:58

I fail to see having 6 gears to be the fault. The more gears you have reduces the ratios needed for power and/or economy. That's why semi trailers have heaps of gears.

Your theory would mean a single gear would be more advantageous, and that does not make any sense to me.

In reply to 13th Nov 2021, 08:58

13th Nov 2021, 20:54

Depends on the car really. I have driven a BMW M5 with a top speed of well over 150mph. 6 gears in a manual transmission is required and justified.

My Vauxhall Astra with a lethargic 1.4 petrol engine also has a 6 speed manual, which I feel is a bit unnecessary in this car. 5 speed would have been fine. Maybe I am just so used to a 5 speed manual as that is what I have used for decades. Some faster automatic cars have 7 gears now, but when you aren't shifting, it does not matter so much.