2000 • Ford
Puma
Ford Puma 1.7 16V (125 Hp) 2000Overall Score59.5/100
2000 Ford Puma vs 2000 Land Rover Freelander Comparison
Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.
2000 • Land Rover
Freelander
Land Rover Freelander 1.8 i 16V (120 Hp) 2000Overall Score59.25/100
WINNER
Ford Puma
Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.25 points.
59.5–59.25
SPECIFICATION GROUPS
Every difference between the two cars
Basic Specifications
Ford PumaSpecificationLand Rover Freelander
FordMakeLand Rover
PumaModelFreelander
2000Model year2000
CoupeBody typeOff-road vehicle
2+2Seats5
3Doors5
Performance
Ford PumaSpecificationLand Rover Freelander
9,2 s0–100 km/h11,9 s
203 km/hTop speed165 km/h
1679 ccEngine displacement1796 cc
125 HPPower120 HP
157 NmTorque165 Nm
4Cylinders4
Fuel & Consumption
Ford PumaSpecificationLand Rover Freelander
PetrolFuel typePetrol
42 ltFuel tank59 lt
9,7 ltUrban consumption13 lt
6,1 ltExtra-urban consumption8,6 lt
7,5 ltAverage consumption9,8 lt
Transmission & Chassis
Ford PumaSpecificationLand Rover Freelander
Front-wheel driveDrivetrain4x4
5Gears5
195/50 R15Tyre size195/80 R15
YesABSYes
Dimensions
Ford PumaSpecificationLand Rover Freelander
3984 mmLength4382 mm
1674 mmWidth1805 mm
1345 mmHeight1760 mm
1040 KgWeight1380 Kg
2446 mmWheelbase2560 mm
E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note
2000 Ford Puma and 2000 Land Rover Freelander 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 0.25 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.
VS
VS
VS
VSComments are loading…