Ford Puma 1997 vs Chrysler Sebring 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 278 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| Ford Puma engine produces 78 HP less power than Chrysler Sebring, whereas torque is 121 NM less than Chrysler Sebring. Despite less power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 10.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Puma consumes 2.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Sebring, which means that by driving the Ford Puma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 405 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Sebring. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 730 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Chrysler Sebring gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 4.83 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Ford Puma is smaller. Ford Puma is 85 cm shorter than the Chrysler Sebring, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 460 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Chrysler Sebring has
| |