Ford Puma 2000 vs Opel Tigra 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 103 HP | 106 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Ford Puma engine produces 3 HP less power than Opel Tigra, whereas torque is 3 NM less than Opel Tigra. Despite less power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 7.7 | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Puma consumes 0.4 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 60 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 660 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| Opel Tigra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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`350 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Opel Tigra has
| |