Ford Puma 1998 vs Opel Tigra 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 122 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 14 seconds | |
| Ford Puma and Opel Tigra have the same engine power, but Ford Puma torque is 3 NM less than Opel Tigra. Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 8.2 | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Puma consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Tigra, which means that by driving the Ford Puma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 550 km in combined cycle | 560 km in combined cycle | |
| 670 km on highway | 710 km on highway | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.60 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.34 m | |
|
Ford Puma is larger. Ford Puma is 6 cm longer than the Opel Tigra, 7 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 215 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 425 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 0.5 metres less than that of the Opel Tigra, which means Ford Puma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`330 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
| |