ZAZ Chance vs Renault Logan: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
ZAZ · 2009–2015
Chance
- Power
- 51 kW69 PS
- Kerb mass
- -
Renault · 2012–2020
Logan L52
- Power
- 66 kW90 PS
- Kerb mass
- 1,150 kg
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
Categories won: Chance 1 Logan L52 0
- City Chance Length: 4,237 mm vs 4,348 mm; Width: 1,678 mm vs 1,733 mm
- Off-road Too close to call Drive and body: Front-wheel drive · Sedan vs Front-wheel drive · Sedan
In plain words
Renault Logan has more power: 66 kW (90 PS) against 51 kW (69 PS) for ZAZ Chance. Renault Logan is 111 mm longer than ZAZ Chance (4,348 mm vs 4,237 mm). Renault Logan is the older design (from 2004); ZAZ Chance arrived in 2009. On the catalog figures, the ZAZ Chance is the pick for city. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the ZAZ Chance yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
Side view to scale, all cars from the front bumper.
| Chance | Logan L52 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,237 mm166.8 in | 4,348 mm171.2 in +111 mm +4.4 in +2.6% |
| Width | 1,678 mm66.1 in | 1,733 mm68.2 in +55 mm +2.2 in +3.3% |
| Height | 1,432 mm56.4 in | 1,517 mm59.7 in +85 mm +3.3 in +5.9% |
| Wheelbase | 2,520 mm99.2 in | 2,634 mm103.7 in +114 mm +4.5 in +4.5% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Yes | Yes |
Difference vs Chance (±). Garage check: a standard single garage takes a car up to about 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in) long and 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) wide (width as listed in the catalog; some makers include the mirrors). Leave about 0.6 m (2 ft) to open the doors.
Full specifications
| ZAZ Chance | Renault Logan | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 1.3 · petrol · 51 kW (69 PS) | 0.9 · petrol · 66 kW (90 PS) |
| Production years | 2009–2015 | 2012–2020 |
| Body | Sedan | Sedan |
| Country | Ukraine | France |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 51 kW (69 PS) 68 hp | 66 kW (90 PS) 89 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 51–74 kW (69–101 PS) 68–99 hp | 55–75 kW (75–102 PS) 74–101 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 108 Nm 80 lb-ft | No data |
| Power per tonne | No data | 57 kW/t 70 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | Petrol |
| Engine | 1,300 cc 1.3 l | 900 cc · 3 cyl 0.9 l |
| Gearbox | 5-speed manual | No data |
| Drive | Front-wheel drive | Front-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,237 mm 166.8 in | 4,348 mm 171.2 in |
| Width | 1,678 mm 66.1 in | 1,733 mm 68.2 in |
| Height | 1,432 mm 56.4 in | 1,517 mm 59.7 in |
| Wheelbase | 2,520 mm 99.2 in | 2,634 mm 103.7 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | No data | 1,150 kg 2,535 lb |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 48 l 12.7 gal US | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 5.6 l/100 km 42.0 mpg US |
| CO₂ | No data | 139 g/km |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €1,470/year estimated |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (3): Body, Fuel, Drive.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.75/l petrol.