Ford EcoSport 2013 vs Toyota RAV4 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.8 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: | 112 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 140 NM | 161 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.3 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Toyota RAV4 is a more dynamic driving. Ford EcoSport engine produces 13 HP less power than Toyota RAV4, whereas torque is 21 NM less than Toyota RAV4. Due to the lower power, Ford EcoSport reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 7.4 | |
|
The Ford EcoSport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford EcoSport consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota RAV4, which means that by driving the Ford EcoSport over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 57 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| Ford EcoSport gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 280'000 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 EcoSport engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Corolla, Toyota Corolla Verso | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota RAV4 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Toyota RAV4 2003 1.8 engine: The 1ZZ-FE engine is more advanced, lighter, and simpler than its predecessor, emphasizing fuel efficiency and output. However, these improvements have come at the cost of reduced durability compared to earlier cast-iron engines. The engine block features an open-deck cooling design for easier production and lower ... More about Toyota RAV4 2003 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.27 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.70 m | |
|
Ford EcoSport is larger, but lower. Ford EcoSport is 1 cm longer than the Toyota RAV4, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford EcoSport is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 333 litres | 400 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1238 litres | 1150 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Ford EcoSport has 67 litres less trunk space than the Toyota RAV4. This could mean that the Ford EcoSport 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 Ford EcoSport (by 88 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`700 | 1`730 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Average price (€): | 9400 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford EcoSport has
|
Toyota RAV4 has
| |