Ford Puma 1997 vs Mercedes CLK 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 2.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 193 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Mercedes CLK is a more dynamic driving. Ford Puma engine produces 68 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 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 9.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 10.5 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Puma consumes 2.5 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 375 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 2.7 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 | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 590 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 520'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mercedes CLK engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mercedes SLK | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mercedes CLK might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mercedes CLK engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
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`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Mercedes CLK has
| |