Ford Mustang 1999 vs Mercedes CLK 2000
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.8 Petrol | 2.3 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 193 HP | 197 HP | |
| Torque: | 298 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Mercedes CLK is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mustang engine produces 4 HP less power than Mercedes CLK, but torque is 18 NM more than Mercedes CLK. Due to the lower power, Ford Mustang reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.0 | 9.5 | |
|
The Mercedes CLK is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Mustang consumes 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes CLK, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Mustang could require 375 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 480 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| Mercedes CLK gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.35 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Ford Mustang is larger, but slightly lower. Ford Mustang is 9 cm longer than the Mercedes CLK, 14 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mustang is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 420 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mustang is 1 metres more than that of the Mercedes CLK, which means Ford Mustang can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | no data | 1`870 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 16 600 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mercedes CLK has
| |