Like to hear feedback from Grand Megane, Fluence, Laguna owners

Patrick20

Currently driving MK2 Laguna dTi and looking at getting either Grand Megane or Fluence in either the 90bhp Dynamique or 110bhpTomTom. Possibilites are to go for Renaults extended scrappage (which ends end of August) or go for pre-regs. Other possible option is to go for 08/09 Laguna with sub 30-40k miles.
Any issues/problems so far?
How do the engines compare, is the 110bhp worth the extra cash or is the 90 version adequate?
How do they rate for mpg?
Any problems with the DPF?

Eleganza

my 110bhp 3 door megane with edc box isn't fast so I don't think the 90bhp would be great. overtaking isn't as easy as it was in the 2.5 litre petrol I had before. planning and clear stretch of road required for overtaking when car in front of you is doing 80kmph. Was a bit like going back to a supermini in terms of overtaking ability but otherwise it is just like driving a larger car.
A manual box wouldn't help with overtaking.
I'm getting 4.7l per 100km and 1200km out of a tank.
I await the fools around here to tell you that an Octavia is yer only Man and you'd be mad to buy a Renault.

jhegarty

Is the 90/110 engine different , or just chipped differently ?

Patrick20

Thanks Eleganza, I'm inclined to agree with you reagrding the extra hp. I think my own Laguna is 98bhp and with all passengers on board, overtaking has to be planned as opposed to instantaneous.(Correction from initial post; my Laguna is MK1 1998-2001). Speaking to the local Renault garage, it looks like all their dynamiques(Fluences) came in the 90 version and the TomToms in 110. 110 in dynamique has to be 'specially' ordered which I find strange. Seems to be the guts of 1.5k to upgrade to the 110TomTom, so its just a case of is it worth it or not.
How long have you the Megane? Overall, are you satisfied with your purchase?

Eleganza

17k KM so far in six months.
3 door looks lovely in gordini blue with GT Line trim.
no mechanical problems.
Plenty of very thoughtful little features in the car that you don't see in competitors like keycard with auto unlocking/locking which stays in pocket at all times, auto-lights, auto-wipers, remote audio controls, cruise control arrangement.
folding mirrors are great
very comfortable for cruising and well insulated from noise which was a major consideration for me.
1200km out of 59l tank is great.
high beam on off side bulb is broke but that's just a bulb that needs to be replaced.
speedo red on black is very hard to see in low light or with sunglasses on but that only affects some trim levels.
sports seats on GT-line are difficult to climb out of.
handling is good but steering feels a tiny bit remote.
mp3 head unit is very sensitive to the type of CD-R media used.
EDC Dual clutch gearbox is not an autobox and very occassionally gets caught out in the wrong gear but it is very clever for what it is.
3 door specific issues are rear visibility and massive heavy doors.

BrianD3

We have an 09 Megane III 1.5 DCi 86, The main difference between it and the 90 is the 90 has a FAP while the 86 doesn't. The 86 also has slightly poorer CO2 and fuel consumption.

Performance is adequate. Fuel economy of our one is very good if driven well. The person who drives it most of the time is a slow driver and averages 3.7 l/100 km, that's 76 mpg. I'm a faster driver and averaged 67 mpg the last time I tried it for a week. That's driving on a mix of N roads and R roads with some town and city driving, driving at the speed limit where safe etc. You won't get that sort of economy if you spend most of your time doing 120+ on the M-way.

50k kms done, no problems with it, not that I'd expect it. Getting very good wear from the original Michelin tyres.

Ride is harder than I would have expected also I dislike the digital speedo. that's the only negative.

PS re: Renault's "scrappage" discount which is supposedly ending this month - - they've been crying wolf about this since 2009, it was called "cashback" then. I'd be very surprised if it's not extended.

Padraig Mor

Patrick20 wrote: »

Thanks Eleganza, I'm inclined to agree with you reagrding the extra hp. I think my own Laguna is 98bhp and with all passengers on board, overtaking has to be planned as opposed to instantaneous.(Correction from initial post; my Laguna is MK1 1998-2001). Speaking to the local Renault garage, it looks like all their dynamiques(Fluences) came in the 90 version and the TomToms in 110. 110 in dynamique has to be 'specially' ordered which I find strange. Seems to be the guts of 1.5k to upgrade to the 110TomTom, so its just a case of is it worth it or not.
How long have you the Megane? Overall, are you satisfied with your purchase?

If it's 1.5k to go from a 90 Dynamique to a 110 TomTom I'd say go for it - the extra goodies (nav, sensors etc) and extra power is well worth it. Note also that servicing intervals are longer on the 110 (2 yrs/30k km) than the 90 (1 yr/20k km).

Patrick20

Thanks for all the feedback guys, its always interesting to hear from people who actually drive these cars as opposed to just testing them for a day or two.
Just been onto my local dealer, and it appears that the pre-regs are the best deal at the moment compared to the extended scrappage, thats providing the colour you want or limited to, is still their. TomToms are available, but actually as 90 and not 110 as I initially thought, which is dissapointing.
I tend to agree with you Padraig Mor, if the 110 was available in TomTom, it would certainly make it more attractive, but at 90 it is less palatble. Cost adder to go from Dynamique to TomTom (both 90) is about €1000 to €1200. Do you have the 110TomTom in either Megane or Fluence??
BrianD3, you mention that the performance of the Megane 86bhp is "adequate" are you refering direclty to the power of the engine? Also, you're assumption about the scrappage extension is right, told this morning that they are extending it into September and perhaps beyond. I tend to agree with you on the digital speedo, I think the conventional speedo dials are more representative.

As regards the 90v110 debate, I'll just have to try them both out and see for myself, thats of course if they have any 110s.

Any Fluence drivers out their with feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks....

Stevie Dakota

Bear in mind the 110 while not only more powerful has the 6 speed gearbox which makes motorway cruising a very calm experience. If there is anyway you can do go for the 110.

Padraig Mor

Patrick20 wrote: »

Thanks for all the feedback guys, its always interesting to hear from people who actually drive these cars as opposed to just testing them for a day or two.
Just been onto my local dealer, and it appears that the pre-regs are the best deal at the moment compared to the extended scrappage, thats providing the colour you want or limited to, is still their. TomToms are available, but actually as 90 and not 110 as I initially thought, which is dissapointing.
I tend to agree with you Padraig Mor, if the 110 was available in TomTom, it would certainly make it more attractive, but at 90 it is less palatble. Cost adder to go from Dynamique to TomTom (both 90) is about €1000 to €1200. Do you have the 110TomTom in either Megane or Fluence??
BrianD3, you mention that the performance of the Megane 86bhp is "adequate" are you refering direclty to the power of the engine? Also, you're assumption about the scrappage extension is right, told this morning that they are extending it into September and perhaps beyond. I tend to agree with you on the digital speedo, I think the conventional speedo dials are more representative.

As regards the 90v110 debate, I'll just have to try them both out and see for myself, thats of course if they have any 110s.

Any Fluence drivers out their with feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks....

I don't have one, although seriously considered it. Even without the jump in power, I reckon the TomTom equipment is worth an extra €1000 or so - hell, a built in nav system alone would cost you €2k+ on most cars. Down the line, the TomToms should be most sought after as well.

BrianD3

Patrick20 wrote: »

BrianD3, you mention that the performance of the Megane 86bhp is "adequate" are you refering direclty to the power of the engine?

Yep. I find the car no problem for overtaking and making progress and it cruises well at illegal speeds on the m-way. I should say that I generally drive alone, I might not find the performance adequate if the car was fully laden.

Also the 86 bhp one that I drive is a 5 speed and is not happy below about 60 km/h in 5th but then that would be quite normal for a small capacity turbo diesel. Not sure what effect having 110 bhp and 6 gears would make. Possibly better performance and economy but with more gearchanging needed to achieve it.

PS there should be a new engine coming out in the Megane in the near future. A 1.6 DCi with 128 bhp, considerably more torque than the 1.5, at least as economical as the 1.5 and with a timing chain rather than belt (=less maintenance) This engine is already available in the Scenic in the UK but no mention of it on Renault.ie yet. It may be that they are trying to get rid of remaining 1.5s and that the 1.6 will not be discounted as heavily if/when it comes.

Casati

We have a 2007 Megane with 108 bhp- I understand its the same engine in the latest cars. I think its a great engine and having driven the new 90 bhp cars I would only consider the higher power unit- I think the 6 speed gearbox makes a massive difference. No mechanical problems in just under 100km bar the window regulators fixed under warranty but likely to break again- big problem on the older Megane's.

The new Fluence doesnt do it for me, looks like its about 3 inches too high, but price and spec is very good. Grand Megane is a great package though. The Laguna is a nice package but only if you can get one at a good price as they will be likely hard to shift when they are 6 years old as per previous Laguna's

Patrick20

Thanks once again for all the feedback and comments.
The general consensus that I'm getting is that the Megane/Fluence overall package(performance, reliability, fuel economy) is reasonably good which is reassuring.
I proably agree with your comment, Padraig Mor about stumping up the extra cash for the TomTom version(minus the extra power), most of the Fluences I see around are Dynamique with TomTom being in the minority.
Casati your comment about the 108bhp versus the 90 is a bit unnerving, I'll just have to try it out myself and do the comparison.
I agree with you for sure Stevie Dakota, if the 110 was available (in pre-reg), it certainly is a runner, but at extended scrappage its getting expensive....
BrianD3, your comments about the 1.6dci engine are intersting. I heard recently about the introduction of this engine as well. The guys in TopGear seemed to give it the 'Thumbs Up' and even went as far to say that Mercedes were going to use this engine in their smaller cars, referring to the small Merc engine as a "donkey"!

_Nuno_

I have a grand megane dyamique, the 86hp version, with no DPF.

I've done 22 000 km with it with no problems, minus a rattle that appeared on the passenger door that was fixed by Renault in the first service.

The consumption is usually around 4.8L/100kms, although I have managed to do 4.3 with one tank, but that was driving very very slow all the time. These are actually calculated averages when refilling the tank by the way. The computer in the car usually indicates 0.3L/100km less.

Being used to small petrol cars, the 86bhp version is fine regarding power as far as I'm concerned. You do have to allow time for overtaking but I'm fine with that as i had to do that with pretty much all the cars I owned previously. I do usually drive alone or with my wife only, and the only time I took over 300 Kg in the car it was very obvious that the engine was doing a lot more effort.

I find the driving position comfortable and very adjustable. I'm 6'1 and I have loads of room, although an adult sitting behind me probably won't say the same.

To me the main negative with it is the lack of rear visibility. The back window is small, the slanted roof also makes the rear side windows small and basically it is very hard to see behind when reversing. Especially when parking I have a lot of trouble accessing the distance to whatever is behind. After 11 months I still have trouble with this, which did not happen with other cars I owned. I'd advise getting the parking sensors.

I also find the ride a bit hard, especially for a French car.

Overall I am very happy with it. There are a number of things that are very practical with it, it has load of space and so far has been reliable.

Poulgorm

I have serious doubts about the durability of diesel engines, specially as they all now have to have DPFs fitted. And they all seem to be fitted with dual mass flywheels also. Not very durable, these things.

They are grand up to 90,000 Km, but after that, your garage bills will quickly wipe out the fuel savings that you will make, relative to a petrol engine.

That has been my experience, for what it is worth...based on a 1.6 Volvo S40 diesel. That's the same engine that is fitted to Fords, Citroens and Puegeots (I can't ever spell that word!)

Now back to a conventional petrol engined car - and if you drive a little more easily, the fuel consumption is not too bad. I do miss the torque, though...

VolvoMan

BrianD3 wrote: »

PS re: Renault's "scrappage" discount which is supposedly ending this month - - they've been crying wolf about this since 2009, it was called "cashback" then. I'd be very surprised if it's not extended.

Renault would be foolish to remove their scrappage scheme. It is the only reason why people presently buy their cars.

Poulgorm wrote: »

I have serious doubts about the durability of diesel engines, specially as they all now have to have DPFs fitted.

A guy who works as a salesman told me that Renault don't fit DPF's to their cars anymore.

He could be wrong though.

ThisRegard

Earlier versions of the 1.5 engines in the new meganes don't have dpfs, mine doesn't anyway.

Don't have issues with rear visibility though, all you need to remember is that the rear window is basically the end of the car, works for me anyway.

_Nuno_

ThisRegard wrote: »

E
Don't have issues with rear visibility though, all you need to remember is that the rear window is basically the end of the car, works for me anyway.

When I have a car parked behind facing the rear of my car, all I can see is the windshield of the other car. I can not see the bonnet at all. Knowing that the car ends where the rear window is does not help me in that situation.

It's not a huge deal, but if you have to do a parallel parking everyday like I do, it is annoying. No accident so far anyway. I just have to be extra careful with it. I wish I had the sensors though.

ThisRegard

Ah I parallel park most days, it's just something you get used to. It doesn't seem any harder than in an octavia or vectra we have, I tend to err on the side of caution I suppose in that I sometimes leave much more room behind me than I expected.

One thing I do think odd about the rear sensors is that they came as standard in the base models of the hatchbacks but optional on everything else.

Patrick20

Drove the Fluence this afternoon in both the 90 and the 110. The difference in power is very noticeable, and I can now understand why so many of you are advocating the higher power option. Purposely did part of the test run on an incline (1/2 to 3/4 of a mile) and the 110 seemed to climb with ease. The 6-speed gear box seemed to be spread out nicely, and appears to harness those extra horses admirably. The ride in both is good, very little external noise, and all round, both felt solid on the road. The steering felt right at both low and normal travelling speeds, visibility/mirrors all round appeared normal. The much mentioned speedo, to my surprise, wasn't as iritating as I thought it might be, on the contrary, I could get use to it. It also felt strange starting the car with the card keys thrown loosely just in front of the gear stick - I'm sure my wife would love this, as no more searching for keys in the handbag. Thats about it, I think the 110 option is definitely very appealing.
Once again, thanks for all your comments and info, a decision beckons.

shamwari

Best of luck with whatever you buy OP. Can I add as a "By the way" that the Mk1 Laguna with the 1.9DTi engine is the only Laguna I'd ever touch. Great car when new and a well looked after one would still be nice car today.

Patrick20

Shamwari, have you driven the MK1 Laguna 1.9dTi in the past?