Ford Puma 1998 vs Renault Megane 2000
Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
---|---|---|---|
Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 90 HP | 95 HP | |
Torque: | 122 NM | 127 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
Renault Megane is a more dynamic driving. Ford Puma engine produces 5 HP less power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Renault Megane. Due to the lower power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 6.5 | |
Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Puma consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Puma could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 60 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 550 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
670 km on highway | 1170 km on highway | ||
560 km with real consumption | 850 km with real consumption | ||
Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 3.98 m | 3.97 m | |
Width: | 1.67 m | 1.70 m | |
Height: | 1.34 m | 1.37 m | |
Both cars are similar in size. Ford Puma is 1 cm longer than the Renault Megane, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 3 cm lower. | |||
Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.5 meters | |
The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 0.5 metres less than that of the Renault Megane, which means Ford Puma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
Safety: | no data | no data | |
Quality: | no data | average | |
Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
Pros and Cons: |
|
Renault Megane has
| |