Ford Puma 2000 vs Renault Megane 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 103 HP | 107 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is a more dynamic driving. Ford Puma engine produces 4 HP less power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 3 NM less than Renault Megane. Due to the lower power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 6.9 | |
|
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Puma consumes 0.4 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 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 660 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.37 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 data | 288 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.5 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 data | 1`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Renault Megane has
| |