Ford Puma 1997 vs Volkswagen T-Roc 2017
| Body: | Coupe | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen T-Roc is a more dynamic driving. Ford Puma engine produces 25 HP less power than Volkswagen T-Roc, whereas torque is 93 NM less than Volkswagen T-Roc. Due to the lower power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen T-Roc is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Puma consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen T-Roc, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Puma could require 315 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen T-Roc. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 940 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 1080 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen T-Roc gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 4.23 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.57 m | |
|
Ford Puma is smaller. Ford Puma is 25 cm shorter than the Volkswagen T-Roc, 15 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 23 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 445 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1290 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 1.1 metres less than that of the Volkswagen T-Roc, which means Ford Puma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 17 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Volkswagen T-Roc has
| |