Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron vs Renault Scenic
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron leads 5 to 3
Biggest differences: Power — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 286 PS, Renault Scenic 218 PS · Consumption — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 13.4 kWh/100 km, Renault Scenic 16.8 kWh/100 km · 0–100 km/h — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 6.6 s, Renault Scenic 7.9 s.
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron is a C-segment coupe SUV, in model year 2027 in four variants: WLTP range from 451 to 576 km, power from 204 to 340 hp.
Renault Scenic
An electric SUV in the C segment, offering two battery options with a range of up to 642 km according to the WLTP standard.
Profile against the market: Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron vs Renault Scenic
Audi Q4 Sportback e-trone-tron performance
Renault ScenicLong Range 89 kWh
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron or Renault Scenic — who wins where
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron leads 5 to 3
The score leaves out metrics where data is missing on one side.
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmRenault Scenic +66 km
- Battery kWhRenault Scenic +12 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron −3.4 kWh/100 km
- Power PSAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +68 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron −1.3 s
- Top speed km/hAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +10 km/h
- DC charging kWAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +15 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minNo data
- Weight ↓ kgNo data
- Boot lRenault Scenic +18 l
Technical data: Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron vs Renault Scenic
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron e-tron performance | Renault Scenic Long Range 89 kWh | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 576 km | 642 km | Renault +66 km |
| Battery | 77 kWh | 89 kWh | Renault +12 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 13.4 kWh/100 km | 16.8 kWh/100 km | Audi −3.4 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 165 kW | 150 kW | Audi +15 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 15–80% ↓ | — | 28 min | — |
| Range per minute of charging | — | 14.9 km/min | — |
| Voltage | — | 400 V | — |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 286 PS | 218 PS | Audi +68 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 6.6 s | 7.9 s | Audi −1.3 s |
| Top speed | 180 km/h | 170 km/h | Audi +10 km/h |
| Drivetrain | RWD | FWD | different type |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | — | 1911 kg | — |
| Boot | 527 l | 545 l | Renault +18 l |
| V2L (external power) | No | Yes | only Renault |
| Length | — | 4470 mm | — |
| Width | — | 1864 mm | — |
| Height | — | 1571 mm | — |
| Wheelbase | — | 2785 mm | — |
The better value in each row is bold and underlined in the colour of the car. Metrics marked ↓ — lower is better. Dimensions are shown without picking a winner.
Energy cost calculator
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron
Renault Scenic
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron
Renault Scenic
Other comparisons in this class: SUV, segment C
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron or Renault Scenic?
The Renault Scenic goes further: 642 km WLTP against the 576 km of the Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron. That is a difference of 66 km.
How do the drivetrains of the Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron and the Renault Scenic differ?
The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron has RWD and 286 PS. The Renault Scenic has FWD and 218 PS.
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Renault Scenic — its 89 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron, with 77 kWh, does not offer it.
Which charges faster?
The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron accepts up to 165 kW DC, the Renault Scenic up to 150 kW.
Technical data comes from official manufacturer materials and we do our best to verify it, but a manufacturer can change a specification without notice and mistakes do happen. Confirm the figures with a dealer before you buy — we accept no liability for decisions made on the basis of this data. Full disclaimer
Range, consumption and weight are given for the base configuration: manufacturers homologate them as a band of values that depends on wheels and equipment (e.g. 533–592 km), and we take the lightest variant, on the smallest wheels — i.e. the most favourable. The same model on larger wheels will travel a shorter distance.