Ford Puma 1997 vs Ford Cougar 1998
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ford Puma is available only with manual gearbox, whereas Ford Cougar has both automatic and manual transmission options. | |||
| Engines: | 1.4 - 1.7 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 - 125 HP | 130 - 205 HP | |
| Torque: | 122 - 157 NM | 176 - 234 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 - 11.9 seconds | 7.8 - 10.4 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 - 7.4 | 8.3 - 10.2 | |
|
Ford Puma petrol engines consumes on average 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than Ford Cougar. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.32 m | |
|
Ford Puma is smaller, but slightly higher. Ford Puma is 72 cm shorter than the Ford Cougar, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 930 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 0.9 metres less than that of the Ford Cougar, which means Ford Puma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | ~ 1`799 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Ford Cougar has
| |