Ford S-Max 2010 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 240 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.9 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Ford S-Max is more dynamic to drive. Ford S-Max engine produces 70 HP more power than Volkswagen Sharan, but torque is 10 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Thanks to more power Ford S-Max reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.4 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Sharan is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford S-Max consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford S-Max could require 360 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford S-Max consumes 2.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 1180 km in combined cycle | |
| 1070 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 920 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Sharan 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 Volkswagen Sharan engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Audi A3, Skoda Superb | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Sharan might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Sharan 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: | 4.77 m | 4.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Ford S-Max is smaller. Ford S-Max is 8 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Ford S-Max is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 285 litres | 809 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 285 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 809 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2000 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford S-Max is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`400 | 2`370 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford S-Max is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Ford S-Max has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Sharan has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Ford S-Max, so Ford S-Max quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6800 | 13 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford S-Max has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |