Renault Captur II vs Renault Sandero Stepway III: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Renault · 2019–present
Captur II
- Power
- 67 kW91 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 14.3 s
- Top speed
- 168 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 1,293 kg
Renault · 2020–present
Sandero Stepway III
No versions in our catalog yet
- Power
- 66–85 kW90–116 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
- Kerb mass
- -
Photo: Vauxford / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
Categories won: Captur II 2 Sandero Stepway III 0
- Family Captur II Euro NCAP: 5★ vs 2★
- Off-road Captur II Drive and body: Front-wheel drive · Crossover vs Front-wheel drive · Hatchback
In plain words
Renault Captur II is the older design (from 2019); Renault Sandero Stepway III arrived in 2020. On the catalog figures, the Renault Captur II is the pick for family and off-road. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Renault Sandero Stepway III yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Full specifications
| Renault Captur II | Renault Sandero Stepway III | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | TCe 90 · petrol · 67 kW (91 PS) | No data |
| Production years | 2019–present | 2020–present |
| Body | Crossover | Hatchback |
| Country | France | France |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 67 kW (91 PS) 90 hp | 66–85 kW (90–116 PS) 89–114 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 67–116 kW (91–158 PS) 90–156 hp | 66–85 kW (90–116 PS) 89–114 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 160 Nm 118 lb-ft | No data |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | 14.3 s | No data |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | 168 km/h 104 mph | No data |
| Power per tonne | 52 kW/t 63 hp/ton calculated | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | No data |
| Engine | 3 cyl | No data |
| Gearbox | 6-speed manual | No data |
| Drive | Front-wheel drive | Front-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,239 mm 166.9 in | No data |
| Width | 1,797 mm 70.7 in | No data |
| Height | 1,575 mm 62.0 in | No data |
| Wheelbase | 2,639 mm 103.9 in | No data |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 1,293 kg 2,851 lb | No data |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 422 l 14.9 cu ft | No data |
| 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. | 5.9 l/100 km 39.9 mpg US | No data |
| CO₂ | 133 g/km | No data |
| Fuel cost per year | €1,550/year estimated | No data |
| Range on a full tank | 814 km 506 mi estimated | No data |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★★ (2019) Better | ★★☆☆☆ (2021) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (2): Country, 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.