Car comparison

Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoostvsFord Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo

Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.

New comparison

Ford C-MAX II

1.6 EcoBoost

182 hp1596 ccGasolineFWDManualTurbochargedMinivan / MPV2010-2015
VS

Comparison overview

Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.

Best choices

Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h
    8.5 s
  • Fastest top speed
    217 km/h
    135 mph
  • Lightest
    1,310 kg
    2,888 lb
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    6.2 L/100 km
    37.9 mpg US
    45.6 mpg UK
  • Lowest highway consumption
    5.3 L/100 km
    44.4 mpg US
    53.3 mpg UK
  • Lowest CO2 emissions
    144 g/km
  • Largest trunk
    432 L
  • Best economy score
    90/100
  • Best practicality score
    84/100

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo

  • Most powerful
    240 hp
    179 kW
  • Highest torque
    500 Nm
    369 lb-ft
  • Best power-to-weight
    141 hp/t
    105 kW/t
    7.1 kg/hp
  • Lowest city consumption
    7.4 L/100 km
    31.8 mpg US
    38.2 mpg UK
  • Best estimated range
    1,111 km
    690 mi
  • Best overall score
    61/100
  • Best performance score
    52/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostFordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
Power
182hp136kW
240hp179kW
Torque
240Nm177lb-ft
500Nm369lb-ft
Curb weight
1,310kg2,888lb
1,704kg3,757lb
Gross weight
1,900kg4,189lb
2,620kg5,776lb
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
216 km/h
134 mph
To 99% top speed
88.9s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph
Calculated
97.2s99% target: 214 km/h / 133 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
8.5s
8.7s
0-200 km/h
44.5s
Calculated
48.9s
Calculated
0-60 mph
8.0s
Calculated
8.2s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
6.2L/100 km37.9mpg US45.6mpg UK
6.3L/100 km37.3mpg US44.8mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK
7.4L/100 km31.8mpg US38.2mpg UK
Fuel consumption highway
5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK
5.4L/100 km43.6mpg US52.3mpg UK
Quarter mile
16.2s
Calculated
16.3s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
139hp/t104kW/t63hp/1000 lb
Calculated
141hp/t105kW/t64hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
183Nm/t123lb-ft/ton
Calculated
293Nm/t196lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
887km551mi
Calculated
1,111km690mi
Calculated
Displacement
1,596cc97cu in
1,997cc122cu in
Length
4,380mm172in
4,848mm191in
Width
1,828mm72in
1,916mm75in
Height
1,626mm64in
1,747mm69in
Wheelbase
2,648mm104in
2,849mm112in
Front track
1,559mm61in
1,606mm63in
Rear track
1,569mm62in
1,606mm63in
Ground clearance-
124mm5in
Trunk volume
432L
300L
Max trunk volume
1,723L
2,339L
Doors
5
5
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank
55L
70L
CO2 emissions
144g/km
163g/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 C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoostFord Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-TurboPowerTorque
  • Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
  • Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost5,700 rpm1,600-5,000 rpm5,950 rpm
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo4,000 rpm2,000 rpm4,250 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostFordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
8.0 s
8.2 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
8.5 s
8.7 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
44.5 s
48.9 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
216 km/h
134 mph
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.7 s
2.6 s
330 ft
101 m
7.0 s
7.0 s
1/8 mile
201 m
10.6 s
10.6 s
1000 ft
305 m
13.6 s
13.7 s
1/4 mile
402 m
16.2 s
16.3 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
143 km/h
89 mph
140 km/h
87 mph

Power comparison

Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
182 hp
136 kW
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
240 hp
179 kW

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo has 58 hp more than Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost.

The biggest power difference is between Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost and Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo: 58 hp (43 kW).

Torque comparison

Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
240 Nm
177 lb-ft
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
500 Nm
369 lb-ft

Curb weight comparison

Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
1,310 kg
2,888 lb
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
1,704 kg
3,757 lb

Top speed without limiter comparison

Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
217 km/h
135 mph
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
216 km/h
134 mph

0-100 km/h comparison

Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost8.5 s
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo8.7 s

Although Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo has more power, Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost is quicker from 0-100 km/h.

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost and Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo: 0.2 s.

Fuel consumption comparison

Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
6.2 L/100 km
37.9 mpg US
45.6 mpg UK
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
6.3 L/100 km
37.3 mpg US
44.8 mpg UK

Power-to-weight comparison

Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
139 hp/t
104 kW/t
7.2 kg/hp
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
141 hp/t
105 kW/t
7.1 kg/hp

Estimated range comparison

Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
887 km
551 mi
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
1,111 km
690 mi

Performance spider chart

Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.

Chart data table
VehiclePowerAccelerationTop speed
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
182 hp
136 kW
8.5 s
217 km/h
135 mph
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
240 hp
179 kW
8.7 s
216 km/h
134 mph

Most attractive quadrant

Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.

Chart data table
VehiclePerformance scorePracticality score
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
Power
182 hp
136 kW
0-100 km/h8.5 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
432 L
15.3 cu ft
Length
4,380 mm
172.4 in
Height
1,626 mm
64.0 in
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h8.7 s
Top speed
216 km/h
134 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
300 L
10.6 cu ft
Length
4,848 mm
190.9 in
Height
1,747 mm
68.8 in

Performance vs fuel economy

Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.

Performance vs fuel economy data table
VehiclePerformance scoreFuel economy score
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
Power
182 hp
136 kW
0-100 km/h8.5 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
6.2 L/100 km
37.9 mpg US
45.6 mpg UK
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h8.7 s
Top speed
216 km/h
134 mph
6.3 L/100 km
37.3 mpg US
44.8 mpg UK

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo 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.

Acceleration vs fuel consumption data table
VehicleFuel consumption, L/100 km0-100 km/h, s
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
6.2 L/100 km
37.9 mpg US
45.6 mpg UK
8.5 s
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
6.3 L/100 km
37.3 mpg US
44.8 mpg UK
8.7 s

Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption

The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.

Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption data table
VehiclePower-to-weight, hp/tFuel consumption, L/100 km
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
139 hp/t
104 kW/t
7.2 kg/hp
6.2 L/100 km
37.9 mpg US
45.6 mpg UK
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
141 hp/t
105 kW/t
7.1 kg/hp
6.3 L/100 km
37.3 mpg US
44.8 mpg UK

Detailed score breakdown

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostFordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
Power
182 hp
136 kW
240 hp
179 kW
Torque
240 Nm
177 lb-ft
500 Nm
369 lb-ft
Acceleration
8.5 s
8.7 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
216 km/h
134 mph
Lightness
1,310 kg
2,888 lb
1,704 kg
3,757 lb
Fuel consumption
6.2 L/100 km
37.9 mpg US
45.6 mpg UK
6.3 L/100 km
37.3 mpg US
44.8 mpg UK
Practicality
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
432 L
15.3 cu ft
Length
4,380 mm
172.4 in
Height
1,626 mm
64.0 in
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
300 L
10.6 cu ft
Length
4,848 mm
190.9 in
Height
1,747 mm
68.8 in
Range score
887 km
551 mi
1,111 km
690 mi
CO2 score
144 g/km
163 g/km
Trunk score
432 L
15.3 cu ft
300 L
10.6 cu ft
Power-to-weight score
139 hp/t
104 kW/t
7.2 kg/hp
141 hp/t
105 kW/t
7.1 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

Fuel cost and annual usage
VehicleFord C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoostFord Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
Consumption6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK6.3 L/100 km37.3 mpg US44.8 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km10.85 LC100 km11.03 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi17.46 LC100 mi17.74 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used930 L246 US gal205 UK gal945 L250 US gal208 UK gal
Annual fuel cost1,628 LC/year1,654 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost

  • Is 394 kg lighter
  • Is 0.2 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Has 1 km/h (1 mph) higher top speed
  • Uses 0.1 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 132 L more trunk volume
  • Emits 19 g/km less CO2

Pros

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
  • Highest top speed
  • Lightest
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
  • Largest trunk

Cons

  • Lowest power

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo

  • Has 58 hp more
  • Has 260 Nm more
  • Has 2 hp/t better power-to-weight
  • Has 224 km (139 mi) more estimated range

Pros

  • Most powerful
  • Highest torque
  • Best power-to-weight ratio
  • Best estimated range

Cons

  • Slowest 0-100 km/h
  • Highest combined fuel consumption
  • Heaviest
  • Lowest top speed
  • Smallest trunk
  • Highest CO2 emissions

Choose cars to compare

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

1.6 EcoBoost
2.0 TDCi
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-TurbovsFordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue
1.6 EcoBoost
2.2 Duratorq TDCi
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAXFacelift 20102.2 Duratorq TDCi
2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
2.0 Bi-Turbo EcoBlue
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-TurbovsFordS-MAX IIFacelift 20192.0 Bi-Turbo EcoBlue
1.6 EcoBoost
2.0 TDCi
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordGalaxy III2.0 TDCi
1.6 EcoBoost
2.5 i 20V
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAX2.5 i 20V
2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
2.0 TSI
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-TurbovsVolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI
1.6 EcoBoost
1.4 TSI
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenTouran IFacelift 20101.4 TSI
2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
2.0 TDI SCR
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-TurbovsVolkswagenTouran II2.0 TDI SCR
1.6 EcoBoost
2.0 TSI
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenSharan II2.0 TSI
2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
225i
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-TurbovsBMW2 Series Active Tourer (F45)225i
2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo
220i
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBlue Bi-TurbovsBMW2 Series Gran Tourer (F46)220i
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost vs Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBlue Bi-Turbo - car comparison - FastVsFaster