Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 vs Ford C-Max 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.4 seconds | |
|
Ford C-Max is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan engine produces 25 HP less power than Ford C-Max, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Ford C-Max. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 330'000 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 Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Superb, Seat Leon, Audi A1 | Used also on Ford Focus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 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: | 4.34 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.58 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is smaller. Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is 4 cm shorter than the Ford C-Max, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 432 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1684 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has 68 litres more trunk space than the Ford C-Max. The Ford C-Max may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`880 | 1`915 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan scores higher in safety tests, but Ford C-Max is better rated in child safety tests. The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford C-Max has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan, so Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 12 000 | 9600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has
|
Ford C-Max has
| |