Renault Captur
Influence of Clio is clear, but is that a help... or a hindrance?
The Captur has a lot going for it, as it’s offered with MINI-like levels of personalisation, while the efficient diesel delivers low running costs. But the engine is also noisy and unresponsive, while the use of cheap plastics in the cabin detracts from its funky design.
Renault's record for building SUVs is patchy at best, but the new Captur isn’t really attempting to be a 4x4. Sure, the raised ride height and black plastic bumper and sill extensions give it a chunky look, but the reality is that the Captur is a pumped-up supermini that’s largely influenced by the Clio.
You get a big Renault badge on the rounded nose, plus a minimal grille and pointy headlights, while sculpted lines flow along the sides of the car and rise to the tail-lights. At the rear the number plate is set into the tailgate, with Captur written in large letters above it, and there’s a relatively small rear window for the raked rear end.
Overall, the Captur looks like an inflated Clio, but what sets it apart is the variety of personalisation options available. Expression models come in seven standard colours, but if you go for a Dynamique trim, you can choose from three packs – Arizona, Miami or Manhattan.
These add a contrast roof and colour-coded interior, plus exterior detailing that complements the car’s base colour. Our Captur came in Oyster Grey with the Arizona roof and had colour-coded wheels. It certainly stood out, but we think the Renault looks better in some other colour combinations. Step inside, and the similarities with the Clio continue.
The dashboard uses the same twin dials that are bisected by a central digital read-out, while the air vents and centre console are carried over, too. But the Captur also uses some of the Clio’s poorer-quality switchgear – the 2008 is far classier and feels like a higher-quality product. The touchscreen infotainment system isn’t the most intuitive to use, either. The menus sweep in and out, so while there’s plenty of information, including sat-nav, radio, multimedia and eco driving screens, ittakes time to navigate through them, which can be distracting when you’re driving. Again, Peugeot’s system is easier to get on with.
There are some neat touches in the Captur’s cabin, though. Our car was fitted with removable and washable seat covers that zip over the standard items – so it’ll be easy to clean up any accidental spills – while the cargo straps on the seatbacks are a stylish touch. Back seat space is slightly poorer than in the 2008, though, and the combination of dark materials and our car’s optional dark-tinted windows made it feel claustrophobic, although it is still more spacious than the Juke.
Another bonus is the fact that the Captur has the biggest boot of these three, whether the seats are up or down, while the reversible false floor lifts to reveal a hidden storage area deep enough for more than merely a laptop.
On the move, the Captur is geared towards comfort and economy rather than sharp handling and performance. The 89bhp 1.5 dCi diesel is 24bhp down on the Peugeot’s HDi, while the five-speed box uses long ratios to boost economy, so the Captur was two seconds slower than the 2008 from 0-62mph, at 11.8 seconds.
In-gear response was equally lethargic, and the notchy gearshift felt vague. In corners the Captur turns in sharply, but there is little feedback through the wheel, and the soft suspension means there is more body roll than in either of its rivals. The payoff for this is that the Renault proved to be the most comfortable cruiser, while its smaller wheels helped it to soak up bumps.
The lower-powered engine also means the Captur has affordable running costs, with free road tax and cheaper company car tax rates. Fuel economy of 46.5mpg on test was reasonable, although this was behind the 2008, as the engine had to be worked harder than the Peugeot’s to keep pace. With a price tag of £17,895, the Captur is £150 more than the 2008, but it has the strongest residuals and is marginally better equipped than either rival here. Does this make up for its shortcomings elsewhere?
