Ford Puma 1997 vs Renault Megane 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 107 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Ford Puma is more dynamic to drive. Ford Puma engine produces 18 HP more power than Renault Megane, whereas torque is 9 NM more than Renault Megane. Thanks to more power Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Megane is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Puma consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Puma could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Puma consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Megane. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| 510 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Megane gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 Renault Megane engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Dacia Duster | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Megane might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Renault Megane 2000 1.6 engine: The engine is very robust and long-lived, up to half a million kilometres, and can suffer minor damage, but overall it is quite reliable. Fuel consumption is relatively high for these engines, but they are not ... More about Renault Megane 2000 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.37 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Puma is 1 cm longer than the Renault Megane, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 288 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 0.5 metres less than that of the Renault Megane, which means Ford Puma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Puma has
|
Renault Megane has
| |