DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

2000 Ford Puma vs 1999 Ford Puma Comparison

Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.

VS
WINNER

Ford Puma

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 1 points.

47.25–46.25
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

Ford PumaSpecificationFord Puma
FordMakeFord
PumaModelPuma
2000Model year1999
CoupeBody typeCoupe
2+2Seats2+2
3Doors3

Performance

Ford PumaSpecificationFord Puma
11,9 s0–100 km/h11,9 s
180 km/hTop speed180 km/h
1388 ccEngine displacement1388 cc
90 HPPower90 HP
125 NmTorque125 Nm
4Cylinders4

Fuel & Consumption

Ford PumaSpecificationFord Puma
PetrolFuel typePetrol
42 ltFuel tank42 lt
9,5 ltUrban consumption9,5 lt
5,9 ltExtra-urban consumption5,9 lt

Transmission & Chassis

Ford PumaSpecificationFord Puma
Front-wheel driveDrivetrainFront-wheel drive
5Gears5
195/50 R15Tyre size195/50 R15
YesABSYes

Dimensions

Ford PumaSpecificationFord Puma
3984 mmLength3984 mm
1674 mmWidth1674 mm
1345 mmHeight1345 mm
1035 KgWeight1035 Kg
2446 mmWheelbase2446 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

2000 Ford Puma and 1999 Ford Puma approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.

Overall, Ford Puma leads the E-Kıyasla score by 1 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.

SIMILAR COMPARISONS

Similar comparisons

Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.

Comments are loading…