Car comparison

Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoostvsFord Galaxy III 2.0 TDCi

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

Ford Galaxy III

2.0 TDCi

210 hp1997 ccDieselFWDAutomaticTwin-turboMinivan / MPV2015-2018

Comparison overview

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

Best choices

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 TDCi

  • Most powerful
    210 hp
    157 kW
  • Highest torque
    450 Nm
    332 lb-ft
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    5.5 L/100 km
    42.8 mpg US
    51.4 mpg UK
  • Lowest city consumption
    6.3 L/100 km
    37.3 mpg US
    44.8 mpg UK
  • Lowest highway consumption
    5.1 L/100 km
    46.1 mpg US
    55.4 mpg UK
  • Best estimated range
    1,273 km
    791 mi
  • Best overall score
    59/100
  • Best performance score
    48/100
  • Best economy score
    92/100

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
  • Best power-to-weight
    139 hp/t
    104 kW/t
    7.2 kg/hp
  • Lowest CO2 emissions
    144 g/km
  • Largest trunk
    432 L
  • Best practicality score
    84/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostFordGalaxy III2.0 TDCi
Power
182hp136kW
210hp157kW
Torque
240Nm177lb-ft
450Nm332lb-ft
Curb weight
1,310kg2,888lb
1,704kg3,757lb
Gross weight
1,900kg4,189lb
2,620kg5,776lb
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
214 km/h
133 mph
To 99% top speed
88.3s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph
Calculated
100.5s99% target: 212 km/h / 132 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
8.5s
8.9s
0-200 km/h
44.3s
Calculated
53.1s
Calculated
0-60 mph
8.0s
Calculated
8.4s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
6.2L/100 km37.9mpg US45.6mpg UK
5.5L/100 km42.8mpg US51.4mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK
6.3L/100 km37.3mpg US44.8mpg UK
Fuel consumption highway
5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK
5.1L/100 km46.1mpg US55.4mpg UK
Quarter mile
16.2s
Calculated
16.4s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
139hp/t104kW/t63hp/1000 lb
Calculated
123hp/t92kW/t56hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
183Nm/t123lb-ft/ton
Calculated
264Nm/t177lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
887km551mi
Calculated
1,273km791mi
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
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 C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoostFord Galaxy III 2.0 TDCiPowerTorque
  • Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
  • Ford Galaxy III 2.0 TDCi: 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 TDCi3,750 rpm2,000-2,250 rpm4,000 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostFordGalaxy III2.0 TDCi
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
8.0 s
8.4 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
8.5 s
8.9 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
44.3 s
53.1 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
214 km/h
133 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
10.7 s
1000 ft
305 m
13.6 s
13.8 s
1/4 mile
402 m
16.2 s
16.4 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
143 km/h
89 mph
139 km/h
86 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 TDCi
210 hp
157 kW

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 TDCi has 28 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 TDCi: 28 hp (21 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 TDCi
450 Nm
332 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 TDCi
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 TDCi
214 km/h
133 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 TDCi8.9 s

Although Ford Galaxy III 2.0 TDCi 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 TDCi: 0.4 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 TDCi
5.5 L/100 km
42.8 mpg US
51.4 mpg UK

The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Ford Galaxy III 2.0 TDCi and Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost: 0.7 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
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
139 hp/t
104 kW/t
7.2 kg/hp
FordGalaxy III2.0 TDCi
123 hp/t
92 kW/t
8.1 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 TDCi
1,273 km
791 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 TDCi
210 hp
157 kW
8.9 s
214 km/h
133 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 TDCi
Power
210 hp
157 kW
0-100 km/h8.9 s
Top speed
214 km/h
133 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 TDCi
Power
210 hp
157 kW
0-100 km/h8.9 s
Top speed
214 km/h
133 mph
5.5 L/100 km
42.8 mpg US
51.4 mpg UK

Ford Galaxy III 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.

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 TDCi
5.5 L/100 km
42.8 mpg US
51.4 mpg UK
8.9 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 TDCi
123 hp/t
92 kW/t
8.1 kg/hp
5.5 L/100 km
42.8 mpg US
51.4 mpg UK

Detailed score breakdown

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostFordGalaxy III2.0 TDCi
Power
182 hp
136 kW
210 hp
157 kW
Torque
240 Nm
177 lb-ft
450 Nm
332 lb-ft
Acceleration
8.5 s
8.9 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
214 km/h
133 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
5.5 L/100 km
42.8 mpg US
51.4 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
1,273 km
791 mi
CO2 score
144 g/km
144 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
123 hp/t
92 kW/t
8.1 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 TDCi
Consumption6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK5.5 L/100 km42.8 mpg US51.4 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km10.85 LC100 km9.63 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi17.46 LC100 mi15.49 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used930 L246 US gal205 UK gal825 L218 US gal181 UK gal
Annual fuel cost1,628 LC/year1,444 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost

  • Is 394 kg lighter
  • Is 0.4 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Has 3 km/h (2 mph) higher top speed
  • Has 16 hp/t better power-to-weight
  • Has 132 L more trunk volume

Pros

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
  • Highest top speed
  • Lightest
  • Best power-to-weight ratio
  • Largest trunk

Cons

  • Lowest power
  • Highest combined fuel consumption
  • Highest CO2 emissions

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 TDCi

  • Has 28 hp more
  • Has 210 Nm more
  • Uses 0.7 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 386 km (240 mi) more estimated range

Pros

  • Most powerful
  • Highest torque
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
  • Best estimated range

Cons

  • Slowest 0-100 km/h
  • Heaviest
  • Lowest top speed
  • Smallest trunk

Choose cars to compare

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
Ford Galaxy III 2.0 TDCi
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 TDCi
2.0 TDCi
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 TDCivsFordS-MAX II2.0 TDCi
1.6 EcoBoost
2.2 Duratorq TDCi
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAXFacelift 20102.2 Duratorq TDCi
1.6 EcoBoost
2.5 i 20V
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAX2.5 i 20V
2.0 TDCi
2.0 Bi-Turbo EcoBlue
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 TDCivsFordS-MAX IIFacelift 20192.0 Bi-Turbo EcoBlue
1.6 EcoBoost
1.4 TSI
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenTouran IFacelift 20101.4 TSI
2.0 TDCi
2.0 TSI
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 TDCivsVolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI
1.6 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsFordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 TDCi
220d
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 TDCivsBMW2 Series Gran Tourer (F46)220d
1.6 EcoBoost
2.0 TSI
VS
FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenSharan II2.0 TSI
2.0 TDCi
2.0 TDI
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 TDCivsVolkswagenTouran II2.0 TDI
2.0 TDCi
220d
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 TDCivsBMW2 Series Active Tourer (F45)220d
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost vs Ford Galaxy III 2.0 TDCi - car comparison - FastVsFaster