Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan 2014 vs Ford C-Max 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Ford C-Max) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 11.3 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan engine produces 10 HP more power than Ford C-Max, but torque is 70 NM less than Ford C-Max. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 53 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 1150 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 890 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford C-Max gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| 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 | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan is 0.2 metres more than that of the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`880 kg | 1`915 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`362 kg | 1`390 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 518 kg | 525 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford C-Max has serious deffects in 105 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan, so Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8000 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Golf Sportsvan has
|
Ford C-Max has
| |