Chrysler Sebring 2000 vs Ford Puma 1997
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 1.7 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 203 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 278 NM | 157 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
| Chrysler Sebring engine produces 78 HP more power than Ford Puma, whereas torque is 121 NM more than Ford Puma. Despite the higher power, Chrysler Sebring reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.0 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler Sebring consumes 2.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Sebring could require 405 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Sebring consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 40 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 540 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 650 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 510 km with real consumption | ||
| Chrysler Sebring gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.83 m | 3.98 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.34 m | |
|
Chrysler Sebring is larger. Chrysler Sebring is 85 cm longer than the Ford Puma, 12 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Sebring is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 460 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Sebring has
|
Ford Puma has
| |