2003 • MG
ZS
MG ZS 1.8 16V (117 Hp) 2003Overall Score53.5/100
2003 MG ZS vs 2003 Ford C-Max Comparison
Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.
2003 • Ford
C-Max
Ford C-Max 1.8 16V (120 Hp) 2003Overall Score54.25/100
WINNER
Ford C-Max
Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.
53.5–54.25
SPECIFICATION GROUPS
Every difference between the two cars
Basic Specifications
Performance
MG ZSSpecificationFord C-Max
9,0 s0–100 km/h10,8 s
19 km/hTop speed193 km/h
1795 ccEngine displacement1798 cc
117 HPPower120 HP
160 NmTorque165 Nm
4Cylinders4
Fuel & Consumption
MG ZSSpecificationFord C-Max
PetrolFuel typePetrol
55 ltFuel tank55 lt
9,7 ltUrban consumption9,7 lt
5,8 ltExtra-urban consumption5,6 lt
7,3 ltAverage consumption7,1 lt
Transmission & Chassis
MG ZSSpecificationFord C-Max
Front-wheel driveDrivetrainFront-wheel drive
5Gears5
205/45 R17Tyre size205/55 R16
YesABSYes
Dimensions
MG ZSSpecificationFord C-Max
4520 mmLength4330 mm
1700 mmWidth1820 mm
1390 mmHeight1600 mm
1125 KgWeight1287 Kg
2620 mmWheelbase2640 mm
E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note
2003 MG ZS and 2003 Ford C-Max 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 C-Max leads the E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 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.
VSImage unavailableFord Focus vs MG ZS2003 and 2003 model years
VSImage unavailableRenault Scenic vs MG ZS2003 and 2003 model years
VSImage unavailableNissan Bluebird vs MG ZS2003 and 2003 model yearsImage unavailableVSImage unavailableMG TF vs MG ZS2003 and 2003 model yearsImage unavailableVSImage unavailableMG ZT vs MG ZS2003 and 2003 model yearsComments are loading…