Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 vs Ford C-Max 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.0 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: | 86 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Ford C-Max is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan engine produces 39 HP less power than Ford C-Max, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Ford C-Max. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.3 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1220 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 144 mm (5.7 inches) | 140 mm (5.5 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 300'000 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 Golf Sportsvan engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Volkswagen Caddy, Skoda Fabia, Audi A1 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford Mondeo, Ford EcoSport | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifespan is relatively low. There tends to be increased vibration at idling speed. Problems with the fuel pressure pump may be the first sign of a petrol smell in the oil. ... More about Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 1.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.34 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.58 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is smaller. Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is 4 cm shorter than the Ford C-Max, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 432 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1520 litres | 1684 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, The Ford C-Max may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford C-Max (by 164 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`840 kg | 1`900 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`245 kg | 1`391 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 595 kg | 509 kg | |
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 14 procentiem more than Ford C-Max. Therefore, Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | |||
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan scores higher in safety tests, but Ford C-Max is better rated in child safety tests. The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford C-Max has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan, so Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8000 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has
|
Ford C-Max has
| |