Ford C-Max 2014 vs Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.4 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is a more dynamic driving. Ford C-Max and Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan have the same engine power, but Ford C-Max torque is 10 NM less than Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan. Ford C-Max reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford C-Max consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford C-Max could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford C-Max consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 1070 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Focus | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Audi A4, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia | |
| 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: | no | yes | |
| 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 1.4 engine: One of the most notorious issues with this engine series is excessive oil consumption caused by stuck piston rings. Another common problem is the actuator of the turbocharger’s wastegate, which is prone to ... 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 |
1684 litres | no data | |
|
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Ford C-Max has 68 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan. 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. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`915 | 1`880 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan scores higher in safety tests. The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| 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 (€): | 8200 | 10 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford C-Max has
|
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has
| |