Ford Puma 1997 vs Mercedes CLK 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 2.3 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 197 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Mercedes CLK is a more dynamic driving. Ford Puma engine produces 72 HP less power than Mercedes CLK, whereas torque is 123 NM less than Mercedes CLK. Due to the lower power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 9.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 9.9 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Puma consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes CLK, which means that by driving the Ford Puma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 315 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes CLK. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Mercedes CLK gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Ford Puma) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes CLK) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Ford Puma is smaller. Ford Puma is 59 cm shorter than the Mercedes CLK, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 420 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 0.7 metres less than that of the Mercedes CLK, which means Ford Puma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`870 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Mercedes CLK has
| |