Volkswagen Sharan 2010 vs Ford S-Max 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
| Volkswagen Sharan and Ford S-Max have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Ford S-Max is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Volkswagen Sharan consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford S-Max, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Sharan over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volkswagen Sharan consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford S-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1220 km in combined cycle | 1160 km in combined cycle | |
| 1400 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 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: | 8 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 12 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3 | 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. Volkswagen Sharan might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volkswagen Sharan 2010 2.0 engine: The engine is very durable and can last a long time with proper maintenance, and is also quite economical for its power. There may be some problems with the turbine geometry. It is important to use good ... More about Volkswagen Sharan 2010 2.0 engine Ford S-Max 2010 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 2010 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.85 m | 4.77 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.66 m | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is larger. Volkswagen Sharan is 8 cm longer than the Ford S-Max, 2 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen Sharan is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 809 litres | 285 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 285 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 809 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2000 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Sharan is 0.3 metres more than that of the Ford S-Max. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`370 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford S-Max is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Ford S-Max has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Sharan has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Ford S-Max, so Ford S-Max quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 600 | 6800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Sharan has
|
Ford S-Max has
| |