2002 MCC Crossblade vs. 2009 Renault Megane
To start off, 2009 Renault Megane is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 MCC Crossblade. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 MCC Crossblade would be higher. At 1,598 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Renault Megane is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Renault Megane (111 HP) has 41 more horse power than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Renault Megane should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
Because 2002 MCC Crossblade is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2002 MCC Crossblade. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Renault Megane, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2009 Renault Megane (152 Nm @ 4200 RPM) has 50 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 2009 Renault Megane will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 MCC Crossblade | 2009 Renault Megane | |
| Make | MCC | Renault |
| Model | Crossblade | Megane |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2009 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 1598 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 111 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 152 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 4200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1470 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1820 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2690 mm |
