Ford Cougar 1998 vs BMW 3 series 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 193 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 7 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Ford Cougar engine produces 23 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 60 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Ford Cougar reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.9 l/100km | 9.8 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Cougar consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Cougar could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Cougar consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Ford Cougar) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Mondeo | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 7 sērija, BMW Z3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW 3 series might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Ford Cougar is larger, but lower. Ford Cougar is 21 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 1 cm wider, while the height of Ford Cougar is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | no data | |
| Ford Cougar has 20 litres more trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Cougar is 0.9 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Ford Cougar can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`825 | 1`895 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Cougar has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |