Volkswagen Sharan II · Facelift 2015
Car comparison
Volkswagen Sharan II · Facelift 2015 2.0 TSIvsFord 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
Volkswagen Sharan II Facelift 2015 2.0 TSI
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.8 s
- Fastest top speed226 km/h140 mph
- Most powerful200 hp149 kW
- Highest torque350 Nm258 lb-ft
- Best estimated range959 km596 mi
- Largest trunk955 L
- Best overall score65/100
- Best performance score50/100
- Best practicality score96/100
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
- 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 city consumption7.8 L/100 km30.2 mpg US36.2 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption5.3 L/100 km44.4 mpg US53.3 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions144 g/km
- Best economy score90/100
Specification comparison
| Model | VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 200hp149kW | 182hp136kW |
| Torque | 350Nm258lb-ft | 240Nm177lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,715kg3,781lb | 1,310kg2,888lb |
| Gross weight | 3,260kg7,187lb | 1,900kg4,189lb |
| Top speed | 226 km/h 140 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 97.7s99% target: 224 km/h / 139 mph Calculated | 88.9s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.8s | 8.5s |
| 0-200 km/h | 38.7s Calculated | 44.5s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.4s Calculated | 8.0s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 7.3L/100 km32.2mpg US38.7mpg UK | 6.2L/100 km37.9mpg US45.6mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 9.3L/100 km25.3mpg US30.4mpg UK | 7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 6.1L/100 km38.6mpg US46.3mpg UK | 5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.6s Calculated | 16.2s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 117hp/t87kW/t53hp/1000 lb Calculated | 139hp/t104kW/t63hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 204Nm/t137lb-ft/ton Calculated | 183Nm/t123lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 959km596mi Calculated | 887km551mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,984cc121cu in | 1,596cc97cu in |
| Length | 4,854mm191in | 4,380mm172in |
| Width | 1,904mm75in | 1,828mm72in |
| Height | 1,720mm68in | 1,626mm64in |
| Wheelbase | 2,920mm115in | 2,648mm104in |
| Front track | 1,571mm62in | 1,559mm61in |
| Rear track | 1,617mm64in | 1,569mm62in |
| Ground clearance | 152mm6in | - |
| Trunk volume | 955L | 432L |
| Max trunk volume | 2,430L | 1,723L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 70L | 55L |
| CO2 emissions | 168g/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.
- Volkswagen Sharan II Facelift 2015 2.0 TSI: Power / Torque
- Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 4,500-6,200 rpm | 1,500-4,400 rpm | 6,450 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 | VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.4 s | 8.0 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.8 s | 8.5 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 38.7 s | 44.5 s |
| Top speed | 226 km/h 140 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.5 s | 2.7 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.7 s | 7.0 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.2 s | 10.6 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 13.1 s | 13.6 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.6 s | 16.2 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 145 km/h 90 mph | 143 km/h 89 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 200 hp 149 kW |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 182 hp 136 kW |
Volkswagen Sharan II Facelift 2015 2.0 TSI has 18 hp more than Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost.
The biggest power difference is between Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost and Volkswagen Sharan II Facelift 2015 2.0 TSI: 18 hp (13 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 350 Nm 258 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 |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 1,715 kg 3,781 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 |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 226 km/h 140 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 |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 7.8 s |
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | 8.5 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volkswagen Sharan II Facelift 2015 2.0 TSI and Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost: 0.7 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 7.3 L/100 km 32.2 mpg US 38.7 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 Volkswagen Sharan II Facelift 2015 2.0 TSI: 1.1 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 117 hp/t 87 kW/t 8.6 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 |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 959 km 596 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 200 hp 149 kW | 7.8 s | 226 km/h 140 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 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI |
| 7.3 L/100 km 32.2 mpg US 38.7 mpg UK | ||||||
| FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost |
| 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | ||||||
Volkswagen Sharan II Facelift 2015 2.0 TSI 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 |
|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 7.3 L/100 km 32.2 mpg US 38.7 mpg UK | 7.8 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 |
|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | 117 hp/t 87 kW/t 8.6 kg/hp | 7.3 L/100 km 32.2 mpg US 38.7 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 | VolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI | FordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 200 hp 149 kW | 182 hp 136 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.8 s | 8.5 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 226 km/h 140 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,715 kg 3,781 lb | 1,310 kg 2,888 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 7.3 L/100 km 32.2 mpg US 38.7 mpg UK | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 959 km 596 mi | 887 km 551 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 168 g/km | 144 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 955 L 33.7 cu ft | 432 L 15.3 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 117 hp/t 87 kW/t 8.6 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 | Volkswagen Sharan II Facelift 2015 2.0 TSI | Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 7.3 L/100 km32.2 mpg US38.7 mpg UK | 6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 12.78 LC100 km | 10.85 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 20.56 LC100 mi | 17.46 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,095 L289 US gal241 UK gal | 930 L246 US gal205 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,916 LC/year | 1,628 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Volkswagen Sharan II Facelift 2015 2.0 TSI
- Has 18 hp more
- Has 110 Nm more
- Is 0.7 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 9 km/h (6 mph) higher top speed
- Has 72 km (45 mi) more estimated range
- Has 523 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Highest CO2 emissions
Ford C-MAX II 1.6 EcoBoost
- Is 405 kg lighter
- Uses 1.1 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 22 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Emits 24 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























