Ford Puma
Car comparison
Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoostvsBMW X2 (F39) 18d
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonBMW X2 (F39)
18d
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost
- Quickest 0-100 km/h9.0 s
- Fastest top speed210 km/h130 mph Unrestricted200 km/h124 mph Restricted
- Most powerful155 hp116 kW
- Lightest1,205 kg2,657 lb
- Best power-to-weight129 hp/t96 kW/t7.8 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption4.5 L/100 km52.3 mpg US62.8 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption5.1 L/100 km46.1 mpg US55.4 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption4.1 L/100 km57.4 mpg US68.9 mpg UK
- Best overall score55/100
- Best performance score42/100
- Best economy score95/100
- Best practicality score82/100
BMW X2 (F39) 18d
- Highest torque350 Nm258 lb-ft
- Best estimated range981 km609 mi
- Largest trunk470 L
Specification comparison
| Model | FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | BMWX2 (F39)18d |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 155hp116kW | 150hp112kW |
| Torque | 240Nm177lb-ft | 350Nm258lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,205kg2,657lb | 1,580kg3,483lb |
| Gross weight | 1,765kg3,891lb | 2,160kg4,762lb |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 210 km/h130 mph Restricted 200 km/h124 mph Calculated | 206 km/h 128 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 82.3s99% target: 208 km/h / 129 mph Calculated | 84.9s99% target: 204 km/h / 127 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 9.0s | 9.2s |
| 0-200 km/h | 51.6s Calculated | 62.7s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 8.5s Calculated | 8.7s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 4.5L/100 km52.3mpg US62.8mpg UK | 5.2L/100 km45.2mpg US54.3mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 5.1L/100 km46.1mpg US55.4mpg UK | 6L/100 km39.2mpg US47.1mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 4.1L/100 km57.4mpg US68.9mpg UK | 4.7L/100 km50mpg US60.1mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 16.5s Calculated | 16.7s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 129hp/t96kW/t58hp/1000 lb Calculated | 95hp/t71kW/t43hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 199Nm/t133lb-ft/ton Calculated | 222Nm/t148lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 933km580mi Calculated | 981km609mi Calculated |
| Displacement | - | 1,995cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,207mm166in | 4,360mm172in |
| Width | 1,805mm71in | 1,824mm72in |
| Height | 1,538mm61in | 1,526mm60in |
| Wheelbase | 2,588mm102in | 2,670mm105in |
| Front track | - | 1,563mm62in |
| Rear track | - | 1,562mm61in |
| Ground clearance | - | 182mm7in |
| Trunk volume | 468L | 470L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,161L | 1,355L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 42L | 51L |
| CO2 emissions | 101g/km | - |
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.
- Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
- BMW X2 (F39) 18d: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 6,000 rpm | 1,750 rpm | 6,250 rpm |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 4,000 rpm | 1,750-2,500 rpm | 4,250 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | BMWX2 (F39)18d |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 8.5 s | 8.7 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 9.0 s | 9.2 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 51.6 s | 62.7 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 210 km/h130 mph Restricted 200 km/h124 mph Likely limited | 206 km/h 128 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.8 s | 2.8 s |
330 ft 101 m | 7.3 s | 7.3 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.9 s | 10.9 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 14.0 s | 14.1 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 16.5 s | 16.7 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 141 km/h 87 mph | 139 km/h 86 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 155 hp 116 kW |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 150 hp 112 kW |
Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost has 5 hp more than BMW X2 (F39) 18d.
The biggest power difference is between BMW X2 (F39) 18d and Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost: 5 hp (4 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 1,205 kg 2,657 lb |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 1,580 kg 3,483 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | Unrestricted 210 km/h130 mph Restricted 200 km/h124 mph |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 206 km/h 128 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 9.0 s |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 9.2 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost and BMW X2 (F39) 18d: 0.2 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 5.2 L/100 km 45.2 mpg US 54.3 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost and BMW X2 (F39) 18d: 0.7 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 129 hp/t 96 kW/t 7.8 kg/hp |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 95 hp/t 71 kW/t 10.5 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 933 km 580 mi |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 981 km 609 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 155 hp 116 kW | 9.0 s | Unrestricted 210 km/h130 mph Restricted 200 km/h124 mph |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 150 hp 112 kW | 9.2 s | 206 km/h 128 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 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| BMWX2 (F39)18d |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost |
| 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK | ||||||
| BMWX2 (F39)18d |
| 5.2 L/100 km 45.2 mpg US 54.3 mpg UK | ||||||
Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost 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 |
|---|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK | 9.0 s |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 5.2 L/100 km 45.2 mpg US 54.3 mpg UK | 9.2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | 129 hp/t 96 kW/t 7.8 kg/hp | 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK |
| BMWX2 (F39)18d | 95 hp/t 71 kW/t 10.5 kg/hp | 5.2 L/100 km 45.2 mpg US 54.3 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost | BMWX2 (F39)18d | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 155 hp 116 kW | 150 hp 112 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 9.0 s | 9.2 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 210 km/h130 mph Restricted 200 km/h124 mph | 206 km/h 128 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,205 kg 2,657 lb | 1,580 kg 3,483 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 4.5 L/100 km 52.3 mpg US 62.8 mpg UK | 5.2 L/100 km 45.2 mpg US 54.3 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 933 km 580 mi | 981 km 609 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 101 g/km | - | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 468 L 16.5 cu ft | 470 L 16.6 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 129 hp/t 96 kW/t 7.8 kg/hp | 95 hp/t 71 kW/t 10.5 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 | Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost | BMW X2 (F39) 18d |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 4.5 L/100 km52.3 mpg US62.8 mpg UK | 5.2 L/100 km45.2 mpg US54.3 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 7.88 LC100 km | 9.10 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 12.67 LC100 mi | 14.65 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 675 L178 US gal148 UK gal | 780 L206 US gal172 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,181 LC/year | 1,365 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost
- Has 5 hp more
- Is 375 kg lighter
- Is 0.2 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 4 km/h (2 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 0.7 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 34 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Smallest trunk
BMW X2 (F39) 18d
- Has 110 Nm more
- Has 47 km (29 mi) more estimated range
- Has 2 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Highest torque
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























