Ford Puma 1997 vs Opel Tigra 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
Ford Puma is more dynamic to drive. Ford Puma engine produces 35 HP more power than Opel Tigra, whereas torque is 32 NM more than Opel Tigra. Thanks to more power Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 4.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 8.2 | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Puma consumes 0.8 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 120 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 560 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 710 km on highway | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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, if possible |
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: | no data | 1`330 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
| |