Ford Mondeo 2003 vs Kia Shuma 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Ford Mondeo) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Kia Shuma) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| 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: | 130 HP | 114 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo engine produces 16 HP more power than Kia Shuma, whereas torque is 178 NM more than Kia Shuma. Thanks to more power Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 9.0 | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Mondeo consumes 3.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia Shuma, which means that by driving the Ford Mondeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 480 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 550 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 690 km on highway | ||
| Ford Mondeo 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: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Kia Carens, Kia Sephia, Kia Clarus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Shuma might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is larger. Ford Mondeo is 21 cm longer than the Kia Shuma, 9 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 440 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1370 litres | 1207 litres | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage capacity. Ford Mondeo has 60 litres more trunk space than the Kia Shuma. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Mondeo (by 163 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 1.3 metres more than that of the Kia Shuma, which means Ford Mondeo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 1`645 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Kia Shuma has
| |