Compare Ford S-MAX 2 facelift vs Renault Grand Scenic 3 vs Renault Grand Scenic 4

Renault Grand Scenic 3 Minivan (2009-2016)

Renault Grand Scenic 4 Minivan (2016-2022)

Ford | Cars

Renault | Cars

Variants

1.5 EcoBoost 165

2.0 EcoBlue 150

2.0 EcoBlue 150 AT

2.0 EcoBlue 190 AT

2.0 EcoBlue 190 AWD AT

2.0 EcoBlue 240 AT

2.5 190 Hybrid

1.4 TCe

1.5 dCi

1.5 dCi AT

1.6

1.6 dCi

1.9 dCi

2.0 CVT

2.0 dCi 150 AT

2.0 dCi 160

1.2 TCe 115

1.2 TCe 130

1.3 TCe 115

1.3 TCe 140

1.3 TCe 140 AT

1.3 TCe 160

1.3 TCe 160 AT

1.3 TCe 115

1.3 TCe 140 AT

1.3 TCe 140

1.3 TCe 160 AT

1.3 TCe 160

1.5 dCi 110

1.5 dCi 110 AT

1.5 dCi 110 Hybrid

1.6 dCi 130

1.6 dCi 160 AT

1.7 dCi 120

1.7 dCi 120 AT

1.7 dCi 150

1.7 dCi 150 AT

Capacity

Fuel Capacity

60.0 L / 15.9 gal

53.0 L / 14.0 gal

Passengers

5 / 7

Chassis

Brakes | Front

Ventilated discs, 320 mm

Brakes | Rear

Disc, 290 mm

Power Steering

Electric Steering

Suspension | Front

MacPherson strut

Suspension | Rear

Multi-link

Semi-independent, Elastic beam

Semi-independent, coil spring

Turning Circle

11.9 m / 39.2 ft

11.3 m / 37.0 ft

11.4 m / 37.4 ft

Construction

Battery | Capacity

1.1 kWh (gross)

Body Style

5-door Minivan

Dimensions

Ground Clearance

120 mm / 4.7 in

Size | Width

1916 mm / 75.4 in | 2137 mm / 84.1 in (mirror unfolded) | 1953 mm / 76.9 in (mirror folded)

1866 mm / 73.5 in | 2128 mm / 83.8 in (mirror unfolded)

Track Width | Front

1606.0 mm / 63.2 in

1536.0 mm / 60.5 in

1602.0 mm / 63.1 in

Track Width | Rear

1606.0 mm / 63.2 in

1539.0 mm / 60.6 in

1596.0 mm / 62.8 in

Wheel Size

20 in

Wheelbase

2850 mm / 112.2 in

2804 mm / 110.4 in

Powertrain

Drivetrain Layout

Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive

Engine | Bore

89.0 mm / 3.5 in

Engine | Compression Ratio

13.0:1

Engine | Displacement

2.5 L / 151.8 cu-in / 2488.0 cc

Engine | Specific Output

60.3 hp/L / 1.0 hp/cu-in

Engine | Stroke

100.0 mm / 3.9 in

Transmission | Gears

6-speed

Reviews

Neofiliac score

24%

19%

10%

Pros

High cargo capacity
Decent engine reliability

High cargo capacity
Good towing capacity

Low fuel consumption

Cons

Bad 0-100kph time
No powerful engine options
Basic suspension setup
Ugly

Horrible 0-100kph time
No powerful engine options
Only available with small engines
No independent rear suspensions

Very ugly
Horrible 0-100kph time
No powerful engine options
Only available with small engines
Poor suspension setup

Price

Offers (incl. referral links)

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.