Ford Puma 2000 vs Ford Cougar 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 103 HP | 130 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
| Ford Puma engine produces 27 HP less power than Ford Cougar, whereas torque is 31 NM less than Ford Cougar. Due to the lower power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 8.3 | |
|
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 Ford Cougar, 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 | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 660 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| Ford Cougar gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Ford Cougar has
| |