Ford S-Max 2006 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is a more dynamic driving. Ford S-Max engine produces 30 HP less power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Due to the lower power, Ford S-Max reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Ford S-Max is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Ford S-Max consumes 0.5 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 75 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford S-Max consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1090 km in combined cycle | 1180 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 980 km with real consumption | 920 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 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 Ford S-Max engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford Mondeo, Ford Galaxy, Ford C-Max | 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. | |||
| Ford S-Max 2006 2.0 engine: In early production engines, the camshaft timing chain often stretched, requiring timely replacement to avoid potential issues. The fuel system, equipped with piezo injectors, is highly sensitive to fuel ... More about Ford S-Max 2006 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.77 m | 4.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 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, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Ford S-Max is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 854 litres | 809 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 854 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 809 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2100 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`505 | 2`370 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Volkswagen Sharan has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford S-Max has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volkswagen Sharan, so Volkswagen Sharan quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 14 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford S-Max has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |