Ford C-Max 2010 vs Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Ford C-Max) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is a more dynamic driving. Ford C-Max engine produces 10 HP less power than Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan, but torque is 70 NM more than Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan. Due to the lower power, Ford C-Max reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.6 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford C-Max consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan, which means that by driving the Ford C-Max over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford C-Max consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 53 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1150 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1110 km on highway | ||
| 890 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford C-Max gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 1.4 engine: The engine is reliable, however, owners frequently report excessive oil consumption, which is usually linked to piston ring issues. Loss of power is another common complaint. It's advised against maintaining ... More about Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 1.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.58 m | |
|
Ford C-Max is larger. Ford C-Max is 4 cm longer than the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan, 2 cm wider, while the height of Ford C-Max is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 432 litres | 500 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1684 litres | 1520 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Ford C-Max uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford C-Max (by 164 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford C-Max is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`915 kg | 1`880 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`390 kg | 1`362 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 525 kg | 518 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford C-Max has serious deffects in 105 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan, so Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford C-Max has
|
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has
| |