Chrysler Grand Voyager 2004 vs Ford S-Max 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 149 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
| Chrysler Grand Voyager engine produces 9 HP more power than Ford S-Max, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Ford S-Max. Despite the higher power, Chrysler Grand Voyager reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Ford S-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford S-Max, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Grand Voyager could require 315 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 3.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford S-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 980 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford S-Max gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 560'000 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 Ford S-Max engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Chrysler Voyager, Jeep Cherokee | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford Mondeo, Ford Galaxy, Ford C-Max | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford S-Max might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Ford S-Max 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 S-Max 2006 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.10 m | 4.77 m | |
| Width: | 2.00 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.75 m | 1.66 m | |
|
Chrysler Grand Voyager is larger. Chrysler Grand Voyager is 33 cm longer than the Ford S-Max, 15 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Grand Voyager is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 920 litres | 854 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 854 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 920 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
4130 litres | 2100 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chrysler Grand Voyager (by 2030 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler Grand Voyager is 0.4 metres more than that of the Ford S-Max, which means Chrysler Grand Voyager can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`630 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 3400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.1/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Grand Voyager has
|
Ford S-Max has
| |