Kia Carnival 2006 vs Ford Galaxy 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 185 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 343 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Kia Carnival engine produces 45 HP more power than Ford Galaxy, whereas torque is 23 NM more than Ford Galaxy. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Galaxy is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Kia Carnival consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Galaxy, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Kia Carnival could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Kia Carnival consumes 4.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Galaxy. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 970 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 18 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Hyundai Terracan | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford Mondeo, Ford C-Max, Ford S-Max | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Ford Galaxy 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 Galaxy 2006 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.81 m | 4.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.98 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.72 m | |
| Kia Carnival is 1 cm shorter than the Ford Galaxy, 13 cm wider, while the height of Kia Carnival is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 308 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 308 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 364 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1666 litres | 2325 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Galaxy (by 659 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight: | 2`920 kg | 2`505 kg | |
| Net weight: | 2`114 kg | 1`735 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 806 kg | 770 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Ford Galaxy has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Kia Carnival has serious deffects in 375 percent more cases than Ford Galaxy, so Ford Galaxy quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia Carnival has
|
Ford Galaxy has
| |