Renault Megane 2000 vs Ford Puma 1997
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 157 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Puma is a more dynamic driving. Renault Megane engine produces 25 HP less power than Ford Puma, but torque is 43 NM more than Ford Puma. Due to the lower power, Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 7.4 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 40 litres | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volvo V40, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Carisma | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Megane might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 3.98 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.34 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Renault Megane is 1 cm shorter than the Ford Puma, 3 cm wider, while the height of Renault Megane is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 0.5 metres more than that of the Ford Puma, which means Renault Megane can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Ford Puma has
| |