BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06)
Car comparison
BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06) 218ivsFord C-MAX II · Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonFord C-MAX II · Facelift 2015
2.0 TDCi
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi
- Quickest 0-100 km/h8.5 s
- Most powerful170 hp127 kW
- Highest torque400 Nm295 lb-ft
- Lightest1,444 kg3,183 lb
- Best power-to-weight118 hp/t88 kW/t8.5 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption4.8 L/100 km49.0 mpg US58.9 mpg UK
- Best estimated range1,250 km777 mi
- Best overall score59/100
- Best performance score47/100
- Best economy score94/100
BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06) 218i
- Fastest top speed214 km/h133 mph
- Largest trunk470 L
- Best practicality score86/100
Specification comparison
| Model | BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 136hp101kW | 170hp127kW |
| Torque | 230Nm170lb-ft | 400Nm295lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,470kg3,241lb | 1,444kg3,183lb |
| Gross weight | 2,015kg4,442lb | 2,050kg4,519lb |
| Top speed | 214 km/h 133 mph | 212 km/h 132 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 94.2s99% target: 212 km/h / 132 mph Calculated | 87.8s99% target: 210 km/h / 130 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 9.0s | 8.5s |
| 0-200 km/h | 50.8s Calculated | 50.3s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 8.5s Calculated | 8.0s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.8L/100 km34.6mpg US41.5mpg UK | 4.8L/100 km49mpg US58.9mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | - | 5.5L/100 km42.8mpg US51.4mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | - | 4.4L/100 km53.5mpg US64.2mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 16.5s Calculated | 16.2s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 93hp/t69kW/t42hp/1000 lb Calculated | 118hp/t88kW/t53hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 156Nm/t105lb-ft/ton Calculated | 277Nm/t185lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 662km411mi Calculated | 1,250km777mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,499cc91cu in | 1,997cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,386mm173in | 4,379mm172in |
| Width | 1,824mm72in | 1,828mm72in |
| Height | 1,576mm62in | 1,610mm63in |
| Wheelbase | 2,670mm105in | 2,648mm104in |
| Front track | 1,586mm62in | 1,557mm61in |
| Rear track | 1,587mm62in | 1,569mm62in |
| Ground clearance | 171mm7in | - |
| Trunk volume | 470L | 432L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,455L | 1,684L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 45L | 60L |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06) 218i: Power / Torque
- Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 4,400-6,500 rpm | 1,500-4,000 rpm | 6,750 rpm |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 3,500 rpm | 2,000-2,500 rpm | 3,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 8.5 s | 8.0 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 9.0 s | 8.5 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 50.8 s | 50.3 s |
| Top speed | 214 km/h 133 mph | 212 km/h 132 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.7 s | 2.6 s |
330 ft 101 m | 7.2 s | 7.0 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.8 s | 10.5 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 13.9 s | 13.6 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 16.5 s | 16.2 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 139 km/h 87 mph | 141 km/h 88 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 136 hp 101 kW |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 170 hp 127 kW |
Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi has 34 hp more than BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06) 218i.
The biggest power difference is between BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06) 218i and Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi: 34 hp (25 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 230 Nm 170 lb-ft |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 1,470 kg 3,241 lb |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 1,444 kg 3,183 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 214 km/h 133 mph |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 212 km/h 132 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 9.0 s |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 8.5 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi and BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06) 218i: 0.5 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 4.8 L/100 km 49.0 mpg US 58.9 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi and BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06) 218i: 2.0 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 93 hp/t 69 kW/t 10.8 kg/hp |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 118 hp/t 88 kW/t 8.5 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 662 km 411 mi |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 1,250 km 777 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 136 hp 101 kW | 9.0 s | 214 km/h 133 mph |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 170 hp 127 kW | 8.5 s | 212 km/h 132 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i |
| 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | ||||||
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi |
| 4.8 L/100 km 49.0 mpg US 58.9 mpg UK | ||||||
Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | 9.0 s |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 4.8 L/100 km 49.0 mpg US 58.9 mpg UK | 8.5 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | 93 hp/t 69 kW/t 10.8 kg/hp | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK |
| FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | 118 hp/t 88 kW/t 8.5 kg/hp | 4.8 L/100 km 49.0 mpg US 58.9 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | BMW2 Series Active Tourer (U06)218i | FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 136 hp 101 kW | 170 hp 127 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 230 Nm 170 lb-ft | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 9.0 s | 8.5 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 214 km/h 133 mph | 212 km/h 132 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,470 kg 3,241 lb | 1,444 kg 3,183 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | 4.8 L/100 km 49.0 mpg US 58.9 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 662 km 411 mi | 1,250 km 777 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 470 L 16.6 cu ft | 432 L 15.3 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 93 hp/t 69 kW/t 10.8 kg/hp | 118 hp/t 88 kW/t 8.5 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06) 218i | Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.8 L/100 km34.6 mpg US41.5 mpg UK | 4.8 L/100 km49 mpg US58.9 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 11.90 LC100 km | 8.40 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 19.15 LC100 mi | 13.52 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,020 L269 US gal224 UK gal | 720 L190 US gal158 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,785 LC/year | 1,260 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
BMW 2 Series Active Tourer (U06) 218i
- Has 2 km/h (1 mph) higher top speed
- Has 38 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi
- Has 34 hp more
- Has 170 Nm more
- Is 26 kg lighter
- Is 0.5 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Uses 2.0 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 25 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 588 km (366 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























