Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 vs Ford C-Max 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 182 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Ford C-Max is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan engine produces 57 HP less power than Ford C-Max, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Ford C-Max. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan consumes 1.3 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 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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: | 380'000 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: | 13 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Superb, Seat Leon, Audi A1 | Used also on Ford Focus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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 1.4 engine: The engine is reliable, however, owners frequently report excessive oil consumption, which is usually linked to piston ring issues. Loss of power is another common complaint. It's advised against maintaining ... More about Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 1.4 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`900 kg | 2`000 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`383 kg | 1`413 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 517 kg | 587 kg | |
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 14 procentiem less than Ford C-Max. Therefore, Ford C-Max 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
| |