Compare Renault Talisman vs Chevrolet Cruze 2 Sedan vs Renault Laguna III
Variants
TCe 160 4CONTROL
TCe 160 EDC FAP
Energy dCi 110 ECO2
Energy dCi 130
Energy dCi 130 EDC
Energy dCi 160 EDC6
Energy TCe 150 EDC7
Energy TCe 200 EDC7
Blue dCi 150
Blue dCi 150 4CONTROL
Energy TCe 225 4CONTROL EDC FAP
Energy TCe 225 EDC FAP
Blue dCi 200 EDC 4CONTROL EDC
Blue dCi 160 EDC
Blue dCi 200 4CONTROL EDC
Blue dCi 200 EDC
1.4T
1.4T AT
1.6D
1.6D AT
1.5 dCi
1.5 dCi Euro5
1.5 dCi Euro5 AT
1.6
2.0
2.0 dCi 130
2.0 dCi 131
2.0 dCi 150 AT
2.0 dCi 150 Euro5
2.0 dCi 173
2.0 dCi 173 AT
2.0 dCi 175 Euro5
2.0 Euro5
2.0 Turbo AT
GT 2.0 dCi 150
GT 2.0 dCi 173
GT 2.0 dCi 173 AT
Capacity
Cargo Capacity
608 L / 21.5 cu-ft ~ 1022 L / 36.1 cu-ft
394 L / 13.9 cu-ft ~ 419 L / 14.8 cu-ft
Fuel Capacity
66.0 L / 17.4 gal
Passengers
5
5
5
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Disc
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Electric Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson strut
Independent, Spring MacPherson, with stabilizer
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Semi-independent, coil spring
Semi-dependent beam with stabilizer lateral stability, Trailing arm, Coil spring
Semi-independent, Torsion beam
Turning Circle
11.8 m / 38.7 ft
Construction
Body Style
4-door Sedan
4-door Sedan
5-door Sedan
Dimensions
Ground Clearance
145 mm / 5.7 in
Size | Height
1463 mm / 57.6 in
1458 mm / 57.4 in
1445 mm / 56.9 in
Size | Length
4849 mm / 190.9 in
4666 mm / 183.7 in
Size | Width
1791 mm / 70.5 in
1811 mm / 71.3 in
Track Width | Front
1614.0 mm / 63.5 in
1527.0 mm / 60.1 in
1557.0 mm / 61.3 in
Track Width | Rear
1609.0 mm / 63.3 in
1552.0 mm / 61.1 in
1512.0 mm / 59.5 in
Wheelbase
2700 mm / 106.3 in
2756 mm / 108.5 in
Performance
Coefficient Of Drag
0.27
Powertrain
Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Transmission | Gears
6-speed
Production
Availability
2016 ~ 2019
Reviews
Neofiliac score
7%
15%
19%
Pros
- Good 0.27 drag coefficient
- Fuel consumption figures can be rather low
- Modern design
- Small turning circle
- Elegant styling
Cons
- No powerful engine options
- Only available with small engines
- Semi-independent rear suspensions
- No powerful engine options
- Only available with small engines
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- Bad 0-100kph time
- No powerful engine options
- Only available with small engines
- No independent rear suspensions
Remove
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.