Chevrolet Cobalt II vs Renault Logan L52: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Chevrolet · 2011–present
Cobalt II
- Power
- 64 kW87 PS
- Kerb mass
- -
Photo: Dawn from Calgary, Canada / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0
Renault · 2012–2020
Logan L52
- Power
- 66 kW90 PS
- Kerb mass
- 1,150 kg
Photo: Alex Blokha / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
In plain words
Renault Logan L52 has more power: 66 kW (90 PS) against 64 kW (87 PS) for Chevrolet Cobalt II. Chevrolet Cobalt II is the older design (from 2011); Renault Logan L52 arrived in 2012. Chevrolet Cobalt II is still in production; Renault Logan L52 is not. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the Chevrolet Cobalt II yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
| Cobalt II | Logan L52 | |
|---|---|---|
| Width | 1,514 mm59.6 in | 1,733 mm68.2 in +219 mm +8.6 in +14.5% |
| Height | 1,514 mm59.6 in | 1,517 mm59.7 in +3 mm +0.1 in +0.2% |
| Wheelbase | 2,620 mm103.1 in | 2,634 mm103.7 in +14 mm +0.6 in +0.5% |
| Fits a standard garage? | No data | Yes |
Difference vs Cobalt II (±). 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
| Chevrolet Cobalt II | Renault Logan L52 | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | petrol · 64 kW (87 PS) | 0.9 · petrol · 66 kW (90 PS) |
| Production years | 2011–present | 2012–2020 |
| Body | Sedan | Sedan |
| Country | United States | France |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 64 kW (87 PS) 86 hp | 66 kW (90 PS) 89 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 64–77 kW (87–105 PS) 86–103 hp | 55–75 kW (75–102 PS) 74–101 hp |
| Power per tonne | No data | 57 kW/t 70 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | Petrol |
| Engine | No data | 900 cc · 3 cyl 0.9 l |
| Drive | No data | Front-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | No data | 4,348 mm 171.2 in |
| Width | 1,514 mm 59.6 in | 1,733 mm 68.2 in |
| Height | 1,514 mm 59.6 in | 1,517 mm 59.7 in |
| Wheelbase | 2,620 mm 103.1 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 |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 545 l 19.2 cu ft | No data |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 46 l 12.2 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 (2): Body, Fuel.
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.