Ford Puma 1997 vs Honda Civic 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 140 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 10.1 seconds | |
|
Ford Puma is more dynamic to drive. Ford Puma engine produces 20 HP more power than Honda Civic, whereas torque is 17 NM more than Honda Civic. Thanks to more power Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Honda Civic is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Puma consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda Civic, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Puma could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda Civic. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda Civic gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.38 m | |
|
Ford Puma is smaller. Ford Puma is 48 cm shorter than the Honda Civic, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 405 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`550 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Honda Civic has
| |