Ford S-MAX II
Car comparison
Ford S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo EcobluevsFord C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonFord C-MAX II
1.6 EcoBoost
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Ford S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue
- Fastest top speed218 km/h135 mph
- Most powerful240 hp179 kW
- Highest torque500 Nm369 lb-ft
- Lowest city consumption7.2 L/100 km32.7 mpg US39.2 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption5.3 L/100 km44.4 mpg US53.3 mpg UK
- Best estimated range1,111 km690 mi
- Largest trunk700 L
- Best overall score65/100
- Best performance score51/100
- Best economy score90/100
- Best practicality score95/100
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
- Quickest 0-100 km/h8.5 s
- Lightest1,310 kg2,888 lb
- Best power-to-weight139 hp/t104 kW/t7.2 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions144 g/km
Specification comparison
| Model | FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 240hp179kW | 182hp136kW |
| Torque | 500Nm369lb-ft | 240Nm177lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,766kg3,893lb | 1,310kg2,888lb |
| Gross weight | 2,575kg5,677lb | 1,900kg4,189lb |
| Top speed | 218 km/h 135 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 95.7s99% target: 216 km/h / 134 mph Calculated | 88.3s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 8.6s | 8.5s |
| 0-200 km/h | 46.0s Calculated | 44.3s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 8.1s Calculated | 8.0s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.3L/100 km37.3mpg US44.8mpg UK | 6.2L/100 km37.9mpg US45.6mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 7.2L/100 km32.7mpg US39.2mpg UK | 7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK | 5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 16.2s Calculated | 16.2s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 136hp/t101kW/t62hp/1000 lb Calculated | 139hp/t104kW/t63hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 283Nm/t189lb-ft/ton Calculated | 183Nm/t123lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 1,111km690mi Calculated | 887km551mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,997cc122cu in | 1,596cc97cu in |
| Length | 4,796mm189in | 4,380mm172in |
| Width | 1,916mm75in | 1,828mm72in |
| Height | 1,655mm65in | 1,626mm64in |
| Wheelbase | 2,849mm112in | 2,648mm104in |
| Front track | 1,606mm63in | 1,559mm61in |
| Rear track | 1,606mm63in | 1,569mm62in |
| Ground clearance | 150mm6in | - |
| Trunk volume | 700L | 432L |
| Max trunk volume | 2,200L | 1,723L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 70L | 55L |
| CO2 emissions | 162g/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 S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue: Power / Torque
- Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 4,000 rpm | 2,000 rpm | 4,250 rpm |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 5,700 rpm | 1,600-5,000 rpm | 5,950 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | FordC-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 | 46.0 s | 44.3 s |
| Top speed | 218 km/h 135 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 | 141 km/h 88 mph | 143 km/h 89 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 240 hp 179 kW |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 182 hp 136 kW |
Ford S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue 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 S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue: 58 hp (43 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 500 Nm 369 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
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 1,766 kg 3,893 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
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 218 km/h 135 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
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 8.6 s |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 8.5 s |
Although Ford S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue 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 S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue: 0.1 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 6.3 L/100 km 37.3 mpg US 44.8 mpg UK |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK |
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 136 hp/t 101 kW/t 7.4 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
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 1,111 km 690 mi |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 887 km 551 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 240 hp 179 kW | 8.6 s | 218 km/h 135 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.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue |
| 6.3 L/100 km 37.3 mpg US 44.8 mpg UK | ||||||
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
| 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | ||||||
Ford S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue 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 |
|---|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 6.3 L/100 km 37.3 mpg US 44.8 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.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | 136 hp/t 101 kW/t 7.4 kg/hp | 6.3 L/100 km 37.3 mpg US 44.8 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
| Vehicle | FordS-MAX II2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 240 hp 179 kW | 182 hp 136 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 8.6 s | 8.5 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 218 km/h 135 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,766 kg 3,893 lb | 1,310 kg 2,888 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.3 L/100 km 37.3 mpg US 44.8 mpg UK | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 1,111 km 690 mi | 887 km 551 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 162 g/km | 144 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 700 L 24.7 cu ft | 432 L 15.3 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 136 hp/t 101 kW/t 7.4 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
| Vehicle | Ford S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue | Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.3 L/100 km37.3 mpg US44.8 mpg UK | 6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 11.03 LC100 km | 10.85 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 17.74 LC100 mi | 17.46 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 945 L250 US gal208 UK gal | 930 L246 US gal205 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,654 LC/year | 1,628 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Ford S-MAX II 2.0 Bi-Turbo Ecoblue
- Has 58 hp more
- Has 260 Nm more
- Has 1 km/h (1 mph) higher top speed
- Has 224 km (139 mi) more estimated range
- Has 268 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Highest CO2 emissions
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
- Is 456 kg lighter
- Is 0.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Uses 0.1 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 3 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Emits 18 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























