Ford Cougar 1998 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| Body: | Coupe | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
| Ford Cougar engine produces 20 HP less power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 14 NM less than Honda CR-V. Despite less power, Ford Cougar reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Cougar consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Cougar could require 60 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Cougar consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 420'000 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 Ford Cougar engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Focus | Used also on Honda Accord | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda CR-V might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.69 m | |
| Ford Cougar is 13 cm longer than the Honda CR-V, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Cougar is 37 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | 1669 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Ford Cougar has 159 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. This could mean that the Ford Cougar 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 Honda CR-V (by 739 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Cougar is 0.9 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Ford Cougar can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 2`100 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 12 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Cougar has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |