Ford Cougar 1998 vs Chrysler Sebring 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 278 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| Ford Cougar engine produces 33 HP less power than Chrysler Sebring, whereas torque is 58 NM less than Chrysler Sebring. Despite less power, Ford Cougar reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 10.0 | |
|
The Ford Cougar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Cougar consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Sebring, which means that by driving the Ford Cougar over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.83 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Ford Cougar is smaller. Ford Cougar is 13 cm shorter than the Chrysler Sebring, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Cougar is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | no data | |
|
Chrysler Sebring has more luggage space. Ford Cougar has 30 litres less trunk space than the Chrysler Sebring. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`825 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Cougar has
|
Chrysler Sebring has
| |