Ford Puma 1997 vs Ford Cougar 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 8.6 seconds | |
|
Ford Cougar is a more dynamic driving. Ford Puma engine produces 45 HP less power than Ford Cougar, whereas torque is 63 NM less than Ford Cougar. Due to the lower power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 9.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 10.9 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Puma consumes 2.1 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 315 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 3.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Cougar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 550 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Cougar gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Ford Cougar engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford Mondeo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford Cougar might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Ford Cougar engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
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, if possible |
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: | no data | 1`825 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Ford Cougar has
| |