Ford Cougar 1998 vs Ford Puma 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 1.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 157 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Cougar is more dynamic to drive. Ford Cougar engine produces 45 HP more power than Ford Puma, whereas torque is 63 NM more than Ford Puma. Thanks to more power Ford Cougar reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.9 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Cougar consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Cougar could require 315 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Cougar consumes 3.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 40 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 540 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 650 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 510 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Cougar gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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: | 5 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Mondeo | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford Cougar might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Ford Cougar 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. | |||
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`825 | 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
| |