Ford Puma 1997 vs Toyota Celica 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 1.8 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 | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 172 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 8.7 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is a more dynamic driving. Ford Puma engine produces 18 HP less power than Toyota Celica, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Toyota Celica. Due to the lower power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Puma consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica, which means that by driving the Ford Puma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Celica gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 280'000 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 Puma engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Corolla Verso | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Celica might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Toyota Celica 1999 1.8 engine: The 1ZZ-FE engine is more advanced, lighter, and simpler than its predecessor, emphasizing fuel efficiency and output. However, these improvements have come at the cost of reduced durability compared to earlier cast-iron engines. The engine block features an open-deck cooling design for easier production and lower ... More about Toyota Celica 1999 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.32 m | |
|
Ford Puma is smaller, but slightly higher. Ford Puma is 36 cm shorter than the Toyota Celica, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 0.4 metres less than that of the Toyota Celica, which means Ford Puma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Toyota Celica has
| |