Mercedes CLK 1997 vs Ford Puma 1997
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 1.7 Petrol | |
| 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: | 193 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 157 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Mercedes CLK is more dynamic to drive. Mercedes CLK engine produces 68 HP more power than Ford Puma, whereas torque is 123 NM more than Ford Puma. Thanks to more power Mercedes CLK reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.5 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Puma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mercedes CLK consumes 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mercedes CLK could require 375 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mercedes CLK consumes 2.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 40 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 540 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 650 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 510 km with real consumption | ||
| Mercedes CLK gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Ford Puma) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes CLK) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 520'000 km | 350'000 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 Mercedes CLK engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mercedes SLK | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mercedes CLK might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mercedes CLK 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: | 4.57 m | 3.98 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.34 m | |
|
Mercedes CLK is larger. Mercedes CLK is 59 cm longer than the Ford Puma, 5 cm wider, while the height of Mercedes CLK is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 420 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mercedes CLK is 0.7 metres more than that of the Ford Puma, which means Mercedes CLK can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`850 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mercedes CLK has
|
Ford Puma has
| |