Ford Cougar 1998 vs Ford Puma 1998
Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
---|---|---|---|
Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 170 HP | 90 HP | |
Torque: | 220 NM | 122 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
Ford Cougar is more dynamic to drive. Ford Cougar engine produces 80 HP more power than Ford Puma, whereas torque is 98 NM more than Ford Puma. Thanks to more power Ford Cougar reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 7.2 | |
Real fuel consumption: | 10.9 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Cougar consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Cougar could require 345 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Cougar consumes 3.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 40 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 550 km in combined cycle | |
820 km on highway | 670 km on highway | ||
550 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.70 m | 3.98 m | |
Width: | 1.77 m | 1.67 m | |
Height: | 1.32 m | 1.34 m | |
Ford Cougar is larger, but slightly lower. Ford Cougar is 72 cm longer than the Ford Puma, 10 cm wider, while the height of Ford Cougar is 2 cm lower. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | no data | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | no data | |
Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10 meters | |
The turning circle of the Ford Cougar is 0.9 metres more than that of the Ford Puma, which means Ford Cougar can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | 1`825 | no data | |
Safety: | no data | no data | |
Quality: | no data | no data | |
Average price (€): | 1600 | 1000 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Ford Cougar has
|
Ford Puma has
| |