2004 MCC Crossblade vs. 2003 Renault Kangoo
To start off, 2004 MCC Crossblade is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Renault Kangoo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Renault Kangoo would be higher. At 1,783 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Renault Kangoo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 6 more horse power than 2003 Renault Kangoo. (64 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2004 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 2003 Renault Kangoo.
Because 2004 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 2004 MCC Crossblade. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Renault Kangoo, 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, 2003 Renault Kangoo (118 Nm @ 2250 RPM) has 16 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 2003 Renault Kangoo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 MCC Crossblade | 2003 Renault Kangoo | |
| Make | MCC | Renault |
| Model | Crossblade | Kangoo |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2003 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 1783 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 64 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 118 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 2250 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 4060 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1850 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2630 mm |
