Ford Puma 1998 vs Renault Megane 2000

 
Ford Puma
1998 - 2000
Renault Megane
2000 - 2002
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 1.4 Petrol1.4 Petrol

Performance

Power: 90 HP95 HP
Torque: 122 NM127 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 11.9 seconds11.4 seconds
Renault Megane is a more dynamic driving.
Ford Puma engine produces 5 HP less power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Renault Megane. Due to the lower power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 7.26.5
Real fuel consumption: 7.1 l/100km7.0 l/100km
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
By specification Ford Puma consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Puma could require 105 litres more fuel.
By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane.
Fuel tank capacity: 40 litres60 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 550 km in combined cycle920 km in combined cycle
670 km on highway1170 km on highway
560 km with real consumption850 km with real consumption
Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank.

Dimensions

Length: 3.98 m3.97 m
Width: 1.67 m1.70 m
Height: 1.34 m1.37 m
Both cars are similar in size. Ford Puma is 1 cm longer than the Renault Megane, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 3 cm lower.
Trunk capacity: no datano data
Turning diameter: 10 meters10.5 meters
The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 0.5 metres less than that of the Renault Megane, which means Ford Puma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces.
Gross weight (kg): no datano data
Safety: no datano data
Quality: no data
average
Average price (€): 1000800
Pros and Cons:
    Renault Megane has
    • more power
    • lower fuel consumption
    • more full fuel tank mileage
    • lower price
    Share these results to social networks or e-mail
    Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv