Ford Puma 1997 vs Seat Cordoba 1999
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.4 - 1.7 (petrol) | 1.6 - 1.9 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 - 125 HP | 100 - 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 122 - 157 NM | 145 - 235 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 - 11.9 seconds | 7.9 - 11 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 - 7.4 | 4.8 - 7.8 | |
|
Ford Puma petrol engines consumes on average 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than Seat Cordoba. 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 | 4.16 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.42 m | |
| Ford Puma is 18 cm shorter than the Seat Cordoba, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford Puma is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 0.9 metres less than that of the Seat Cordoba, which means Ford Puma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | ~ 1`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Seat Cordoba has
| |