Ford Cougar 1998 vs Ford Puma 1997
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ford Cougar is available with both manual and automatic gearboxes, whereas Ford Puma is available only with manual gearbox. | |||
| Engines: | 2.0 - 2.5 | 1.4 - 1.7 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 - 205 HP | 90 - 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 - 234 NM | 122 - 157 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.8 - 10.4 seconds | 9.2 - 11.9 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 - 10.2 | 7.2 - 7.4 | |
|
Ford Cougar petrol engines consumes on average 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than Ford Puma. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 3.98 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.34 m | |
|
Ford Cougar is larger, but slightly lower. Ford Cougar is 72 cm longer than the Ford Puma, 10 cm wider, while the height of Ford Cougar is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Cougar is 0.9 metres more than that of the Ford Puma, which means Ford Cougar can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`799 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Cougar has
|
Ford Puma has
| |