Car comparison

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoostvsFord C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost

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

New comparison

Ford Galaxy III

2.0 EcoBoost

240 hp1999 ccGasolineFWDAutomaticTurbochargedMinivan / MPV2015-2018
VS

Ford C-MAX II

1.6 EcoBoost

182 hp1596 ccGasolineFWDManualTurbochargedMinivan / MPV2010-2015

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
  • 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 city consumption
    7.8 L/100 km
    30.2 mpg US
    36.2 mpg UK
  • Lowest highway consumption
    5.3 L/100 km
    44.4 mpg US
    53.3 mpg UK
  • Lowest CO2 emissions
    144 g/km
  • Best estimated range
    887 km
    551 mi
  • Largest trunk
    432 L
  • Best economy score
    90/100
  • Best practicality score
    84/100

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost

  • Fastest top speed
    222 km/h
    138 mph
  • Most powerful
    240 hp
    179 kW
  • Highest torque
    345 Nm
    254 lb-ft
  • Best power-to-weight
    145 hp/t
    108 kW/t
    6.9 kg/hp
  • Best overall score
    59/100
  • Best performance score
    49/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelFordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
Power
240hp179kW
182hp136kW
Torque
345Nm254lb-ft
240Nm177lb-ft
Curb weight
1,658kg3,655lb
1,310kg2,888lb
Gross weight
2,585kg5,699lb
1,900kg4,189lb
Top speed
222 km/h
138 mph
217 km/h
135 mph
To 99% top speed
98.7s99% target: 220 km/h / 137 mph
Calculated
88.3s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
8.6s
8.5s
0-200 km/h
43.3s
Calculated
44.3s
Calculated
0-60 mph
8.1s
Calculated
8.0s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
7.9L/100 km29.8mpg US35.8mpg UK
6.2L/100 km37.9mpg US45.6mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
10.3L/100 km22.8mpg US27.4mpg UK
7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK
Fuel consumption highway
6.5L/100 km36.2mpg US43.5mpg UK
5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK
Quarter mile
16.2s
Calculated
16.2s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
145hp/t108kW/t66hp/1000 lb
Calculated
139hp/t104kW/t63hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
208Nm/t139lb-ft/ton
Calculated
183Nm/t123lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
886km551mi
Calculated
887km551mi
Calculated
Displacement
1,999cc122cu in
1,596cc97cu in
Length
4,848mm191in
4,380mm172in
Width
1,916mm75in
1,828mm72in
Height
1,747mm69in
1,626mm64in
Wheelbase
2,849mm112in
2,648mm104in
Front track
1,606mm63in
1,559mm61in
Rear track
1,606mm63in
1,569mm62in
Ground clearance
124mm5in
-
Trunk volume
300L
432L
Max trunk volume
2,339L
1,723L
Doors
5
5
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank
70L
55L
CO2 emissions
180g/km
144g/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 Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoostFord C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoostPowerTorque
  • Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
  • Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost5,400 rpm2,300-4,900 rpm5,650 rpm
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost5,700 rpm1,600-5,000 rpm5,950 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricFordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
8.1 s
8.0 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
8.6 s
8.5 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
43.3 s
44.3 s
Top speed
222 km/h
138 mph
217 km/h
135 mph
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.6 s
2.7 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
13.7 s
13.6 s
1/4 mile
402 m
16.2 s
16.2 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
142 km/h
88 mph
143 km/h
89 mph

Power comparison

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

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

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost 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 EcoBoost: 58 hp (43 kW).

Torque comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
345 Nm
254 lb-ft
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
240 Nm
177 lb-ft

Curb weight comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
1,658 kg
3,655 lb
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
1,310 kg
2,888 lb

Top speed without limiter comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
222 km/h
138 mph
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
217 km/h
135 mph

0-100 km/h comparison

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

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

Although Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost 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 EcoBoost: 0.1 s.

Fuel consumption comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
7.9 L/100 km
29.8 mpg US
35.8 mpg UK
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
6.2 L/100 km
37.9 mpg US
45.6 mpg UK

The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost and Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost: 1.7 L/100 km.

Power-to-weight comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
145 hp/t
108 kW/t
6.9 kg/hp
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
139 hp/t
104 kW/t
7.2 kg/hp

Estimated range comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
886 km
551 mi
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
887 km
551 mi

Performance spider chart

Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.

Chart data table
VehiclePowerAccelerationTop speed
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
240 hp
179 kW
8.6 s
222 km/h
138 mph
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
182 hp
136 kW
8.5 s
217 km/h
135 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
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h8.6 s
Top speed
222 km/h
138 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
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

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
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h8.6 s
Top speed
222 km/h
138 mph
7.9 L/100 km
29.8 mpg US
35.8 mpg UK
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

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 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.

Acceleration vs fuel consumption data table
VehicleFuel consumption, L/100 km0-100 km/h, s
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
7.9 L/100 km
29.8 mpg US
35.8 mpg UK
8.6 s
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
6.2 L/100 km
37.9 mpg US
45.6 mpg UK
8.5 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
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
145 hp/t
108 kW/t
6.9 kg/hp
7.9 L/100 km
29.8 mpg US
35.8 mpg UK
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

Detailed score breakdown

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleFordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
Power
240 hp
179 kW
182 hp
136 kW
Torque
345 Nm
254 lb-ft
240 Nm
177 lb-ft
Acceleration
8.6 s
8.5 s
Top speed
222 km/h
138 mph
217 km/h
135 mph
Lightness
1,658 kg
3,655 lb
1,310 kg
2,888 lb
Fuel consumption
7.9 L/100 km
29.8 mpg US
35.8 mpg UK
6.2 L/100 km
37.9 mpg US
45.6 mpg UK
Practicality
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
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
Range score
886 km
551 mi
887 km
551 mi
CO2 score
180 g/km
144 g/km
Trunk score
300 L
10.6 cu ft
432 L
15.3 cu ft
Power-to-weight score
145 hp/t
108 kW/t
6.9 kg/hp
139 hp/t
104 kW/t
7.2 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 Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoostFord C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
Consumption7.9 L/100 km29.8 mpg US35.8 mpg UK6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km13.83 LC100 km10.85 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi22.25 LC100 mi17.46 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used1,185 L313 US gal261 UK gal930 L246 US gal205 UK gal
Annual fuel cost2,074 LC/year1,628 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost

  • Has 58 hp more
  • Has 105 Nm more
  • Has 5 km/h (3 mph) higher top speed
  • Has 6 hp/t better power-to-weight

Pros

  • Highest top speed
  • Most powerful
  • Highest torque
  • Best power-to-weight ratio

Cons

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

Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost

  • Is 348 kg lighter
  • Is 0.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Uses 1.7 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 1 km (1 mi) more estimated range
  • Has 132 L more trunk volume
  • Emits 36 g/km less CO2

Pros

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
  • Lightest
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
  • Best estimated range
  • Largest trunk

Cons

  • Lowest power
  • Lowest top speed

Choose cars to compare

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

Popular comparisons

2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAX II2.0 EcoBoost
1.6 EcoBoost
2.0 TDCi
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 Bi-Turbo EcoBlue
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAX IIFacelift 20192.0 Bi-Turbo EcoBlue
1.6 EcoBoost
2.2 Duratorq TDCi
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAXFacelift 20102.2 Duratorq TDCi
1.6 EcoBoost
2.0 TDCi
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordGalaxy III2.0 TDCi
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 TSI
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI
1.6 EcoBoost
2.5 i 20V
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAX2.5 i 20V
2.0 EcoBoost
225i
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsBMW2 Series Active Tourer (F45)225i
1.6 EcoBoost
1.4 TSI
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenTouran IFacelift 20101.4 TSI
1.6 EcoBoost
2.0 TSI
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenSharan II2.0 TSI
2.0 EcoBoost
220i
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsBMW2 Series Gran Tourer (F46)220i
1.6 EcoBoost
1.8 TSI
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenTouran II1.8 TSI
Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost vs Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost - car comparison - FastVsFaster