Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Renault Scenic 2003 fuel consumption

Renault Scenic from 2003 to 2006 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 15% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 13% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 18% higher. Starting from 2003 Renault Scenic average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was significantly higher than average, at 2004 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became slightly above industry average. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersRenault ScenicAll carmakersRenault Scenic
2003+6%+12% +8%+19%
Show all years
2004+7%+12% +9%+17%
2005+8%+12% +10%+14%
2006+9%+12% +11%+10%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Renault Scenic.

2003 - 2006

Renault Scenic 2003 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines30.0 MPG
7.9 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines26.3 MPG
8.9 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+12%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines43.2 MPG
5.4 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines37.5 MPG
6.3 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+15%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Renault Scenic 2003 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.7 liters per 100 km or 10% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Renault Scenic with automatic transmission consumes around 0.8 litres per 100 km or 9% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Renault Scenic fuel economy is slightly worse than average. The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 2.0 petrol engine and manual transmission (Renault Scenic 2003 2.0 16V 136 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Renault Scenic with 2.0 diesel engine and manual transmission (Renault Scenic 2006 2.0 dCi 150 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.4 liter petrol engine
Renault Scenic 2003 1.4 16V 98 HP manual 32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km
1.5 liter diesel engine
Renault Scenic 2003 1.5 DCi 80 Hp 80 HP manual 47.0 MPG
5.0 l/100km
37.3 MPG
6.3 l/100km+26%
Renault Scenic 2005 1.5 dCi 85 Hp 85 HP manual 44.4 MPG
5.3 l/100km
Renault Scenic 2004 1.5 DCi 100 Hp 100 HP manual 47.0 MPG
5.0 l/100km
41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km+14%
Renault Scenic 2005 1.5 dCi 105 Hp 105 HP manual 45.2 MPG
5.2 l/100km
40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km+12%
1.6 liter petrol engine
Renault Scenic 2003 1.6 16V 115 HP manual 32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km
28.7 MPG
8.2 l/100km+14%
Renault Scenic 2004 1.6 16V Automatic 115 HP automatic 29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km
25.6 MPG
9.2 l/100km+15%
1.9 liter diesel engine
Renault Scenic 2003 1.9 DCi 120 HP manual 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km+12%
Renault Scenic 2005 1.9 dCi 130 HP manual 39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km+8%
2.0 liter petrol engine
Renault Scenic 2003 2.0 16V 136 HP manual 29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km
26.7 MPG
8.8 l/100km+10%
Renault Scenic 2004 2.0 16V Automatic 136 HP automatic 27.4 MPG
8.6 l/100km
25.3 MPG
9.3 l/100km+8%
Renault Scenic 2004 2.0 16V T 163 HP manual 29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km
25.6 MPG
9.2 l/100km+14%
2.0 liter diesel engine
Renault Scenic 2006 2.0 dCi 150 HP manual 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
34.6 MPG
6.8 l/100km+17%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.