Ford Puma 1997 vs Audi TT 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 225 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 6.6 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is a more dynamic driving. Ford Puma engine produces 100 HP less power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 123 NM less than Audi TT. Due to the lower power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 9.9 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Puma consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that by driving the Ford Puma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi TT gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 4.04 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.34 m | |
|
Ford Puma is smaller. Ford Puma is 6 cm shorter than the Audi TT, 9 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 220 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 4600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Audi TT has
| |