Ford C-Max 2014 vs Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014
Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 150 HP | 125 HP | |
Torque: | 240 NM | 200 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
Ford C-Max engine produces 25 HP more power than Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan. Despite the higher power, Ford C-Max reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 5.2 | |
Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford C-Max consumes 1.3 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 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford C-Max consumes 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 50 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
1070 km on highway | 1110 km on highway | ||
590 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 380'000 km | |
Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan engine could be longer. | |||
Engine production duration: | 5 years | 12 years | |
Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Focus | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Superb, Seat Leon, Audi A1 | |
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: 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 |
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): | 2`000 | 1`900 | |
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
| |