Chrysler Sebring 1994 vs Ford Puma 1997
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 1.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 166 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 157 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
| Chrysler Sebring engine produces 41 HP more power than Ford Puma, whereas torque is 73 NM more than Ford Puma. Despite the higher power, Chrysler Sebring reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.5 | 7.4 | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chrysler Sebring consumes 4.1 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 615 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 40 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 520 km in combined cycle | 540 km in combined cycle | |
| 660 km on highway | 650 km on highway | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 4 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chrysler Sebring might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.76 m | 3.98 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.30 m | 1.34 m | |
|
Chrysler Sebring is larger, but lower. Chrysler Sebring is 78 cm longer than the Ford Puma, 10 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Sebring is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 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 (€): | 1800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Sebring has
|
Ford Puma has
| |