Close Menu
  • News
  • Featured
  • Electric Cars
  • Luxury Cars
  • Reviews
  • Advice
What's Hot

BMW iX5 First Drive, GM's Big Tech Plans, And Tesla Cybercab Deliveries Are Coming Soon

October 23, 2026

Hyundai’s $359 IONIQ 5 lease looks good, but its 3-row SUV may be a better deal

October 23, 2026

2027 Ford Mustang Mach-E gets new Trail Package & bigger batteries

October 23, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Motors MachineMotors Machine
  • News
  • Featured
  • Electric Cars
  • Luxury Cars
  • Reviews
  • Advice
Motors MachineMotors Machine
Home»Reviews»Renault Master van review
Reviews

Renault Master van review

SofiaBy SofiaMarch 13, 2025No Comments2 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Telegram Pinterest Tumblr Reddit Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

On the road, a lofty driving position gives you a clear view ahead, while the weighting of the controls, noise levels and ride comfort, helps the Master to be an intuitive and comfortable van to drive, both on the motorway and around town. 

Advertisement – Article continues below

Prices kick off at less than £34,000 (+VAT) for the entry-level diesel Master in L2H2 configuration. The Master E-Tech is pricier, costing from around £43,000 (+VAT), but that drops to less than £40,000 with the Government’s low-emission van grant, and means that while the Master has a longer range than large electric van rivals, it costs a few thousand pounds less than its Ford and Mercedes competitors. 

Thanks to a redesigned body, the latest Renault Master has 20 per cent less drag than the old model, and Renault claims that it’s the most aerodynamically efficient van in its class. In the real world, that means improved fuel economy and lower emissions, while the Master E-Tech offers a longer range.

The diesels use a new Blue dCi 2.0-litre four-cylinder engine with three power outputs. The base 130 engine can achieve up to 33.2mpg on the combined cycle, a figure that’s matched by the most powerful 170 engine. The middle-tier 150 engine is slightly better, achieving up to 34mpg. These figures are for Masters equipped with the manual gearbox – we expect fuel economy to drop marginally if the nine-speed automatic is fitted. 

Source link

See also  2023 Infiniti QX60 Review: Now worth checking out
Master Renault Review van
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Sofia

Related Posts

The GAC Aion V Looks Odd But Is Incredible Value | Review

October 11, 2026

Volkswagen T-Cross review

October 10, 2026

Used SsangYong Korando (Mk4, 2019-date) buyer’s guide: an SUV for just £10k

October 9, 2026

New MINI Cooper Paul Smith Edition 2026 review: fun, unique and understated

October 8, 2026

New Audi RS 5 2026 review: predictably great to drive but surprisingly efficient

October 7, 2026

Volkswagen ID.4 review

October 6, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Top Posts

BMW iX5 First Drive, GM's Big Tech Plans, And Tesla Cybercab Deliveries Are Coming Soon

October 23, 2026

Hyundai’s $359 IONIQ 5 lease looks good, but its 3-row SUV may be a better deal

October 23, 2026

2027 Ford Mustang Mach-E gets new Trail Package & bigger batteries

October 23, 2026
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • TikTok
  • WhatsApp
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
Latest Reviews
Reviews

Volkswagen T-Cross review

By SofiaOctober 10, 2026
Reviews

Used SsangYong Korando (Mk4, 2019-date) buyer’s guide: an SUV for just £10k

By SofiaOctober 9, 2026
Reviews

New MINI Cooper Paul Smith Edition 2026 review: fun, unique and understated

By SofiaOctober 8, 2026
Most Popular

Stellantis EV exhaust system could cool the chances of a fire

February 4, 2025

Toyota RAV4 vs Cupra Terramar: sporty meets sensible in big-time SUV clash

May 2, 2025

Car Shocks and Struts: Signs They Are Worn Out

February 2, 2023
Subscribe
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram Pinterest YouTube
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
© 2026 Almaville Media.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.