Car comparison

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoostvsFord C-MAX II · Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi

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 · Facelift 2015

2.0 TDCi

170 hp1997 ccDieselFWDAutomaticTurbochargedMinivan / MPV2015-2019

Comparison overview

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

Best choices

Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h
    8.5 s
  • Highest torque
    400 Nm
    295 lb-ft
  • Lightest
    1,444 kg
    3,183 lb
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    4.8 L/100 km
    49.0 mpg US
    58.9 mpg UK
  • Lowest city consumption
    5.5 L/100 km
    42.8 mpg US
    51.4 mpg UK
  • Lowest highway consumption
    4.4 L/100 km
    53.5 mpg US
    64.2 mpg UK
  • Best estimated range
    1,250 km
    777 mi
  • Largest trunk
    432 L
  • Best economy score
    94/100
  • 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
  • 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
Power
240hp179kW
170hp127kW
Torque
345Nm254lb-ft
400Nm295lb-ft
Curb weight
1,658kg3,655lb
1,444kg3,183lb
Gross weight
2,585kg5,699lb
2,050kg4,519lb
Top speed
222 km/h
138 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
To 99% top speed
98.7s99% target: 220 km/h / 137 mph
Calculated
87.8s99% target: 210 km/h / 130 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
8.6s
8.5s
0-200 km/h
43.3s
Calculated
50.3s
Calculated
0-60 mph
8.1s
Calculated
8.0s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
7.9L/100 km29.8mpg US35.8mpg UK
4.8L/100 km49mpg US58.9mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
10.3L/100 km22.8mpg US27.4mpg UK
5.5L/100 km42.8mpg US51.4mpg UK
Fuel consumption highway
6.5L/100 km36.2mpg US43.5mpg UK
4.4L/100 km53.5mpg US64.2mpg UK
Quarter mile
16.2s
Calculated
16.2s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
145hp/t108kW/t66hp/1000 lb
Calculated
118hp/t88kW/t53hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
208Nm/t139lb-ft/ton
Calculated
277Nm/t185lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
886km551mi
Calculated
1,250km777mi
Calculated
Displacement
1,999cc122cu in
1,997cc122cu in
Length
4,848mm191in
4,379mm172in
Width
1,916mm75in
1,828mm72in
Height
1,747mm69in
1,610mm63in
Wheelbase
2,849mm112in
2,648mm104in
Front track
1,606mm63in
1,557mm61in
Rear track
1,606mm63in
1,569mm62in
Ground clearance
124mm5in
-
Trunk volume
300L
432L
Max trunk volume
2,339L
1,684L
Doors
5
5
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank
70L
60L
CO2 emissions
180g/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 Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCiPowerTorque
  • Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
  • Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi: 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi3,500 rpm2,000-2,500 rpm3,750 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricFordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostFordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
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
50.3 s
Top speed
222 km/h
138 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.6 s
2.6 s
330 ft
101 m
7.0 s
7.0 s
1/8 mile
201 m
10.6 s
10.5 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
141 km/h
88 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
170 hp
127 kW

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost has 70 hp more than Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi.

The biggest power difference is between Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi and Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost: 70 hp (52 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
400 Nm
295 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
1,444 kg
3,183 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
212 km/h
132 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi8.5 s

Although Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost has more power, Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi is quicker from 0-100 km/h.

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
4.8 L/100 km
49.0 mpg US
58.9 mpg UK

The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi and Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost: 3.1 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
118 hp/t
88 kW/t
8.5 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
1,250 km
777 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
170 hp
127 kW
8.5 s
212 km/h
132 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
Power
170 hp
127 kW
0-100 km/h8.5 s
Top speed
212 km/h
132 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
432 L
15.3 cu ft
Length
4,379 mm
172.4 in
Height
1,610 mm
63.4 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
Power
170 hp
127 kW
0-100 km/h8.5 s
Top speed
212 km/h
132 mph
4.8 L/100 km
49.0 mpg US
58.9 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
4.8 L/100 km
49.0 mpg US
58.9 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 IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
118 hp/t
88 kW/t
8.5 kg/hp
4.8 L/100 km
49.0 mpg US
58.9 mpg UK

Detailed score breakdown

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleFordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostFordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCi
Power
240 hp
179 kW
170 hp
127 kW
Torque
345 Nm
254 lb-ft
400 Nm
295 lb-ft
Acceleration
8.6 s
8.5 s
Top speed
222 km/h
138 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
Lightness
1,658 kg
3,655 lb
1,444 kg
3,183 lb
Fuel consumption
7.9 L/100 km
29.8 mpg US
35.8 mpg UK
4.8 L/100 km
49.0 mpg US
58.9 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
4,379 mm
172.4 in
Height
1,610 mm
63.4 in
Range score
886 km
551 mi
1,250 km
777 mi
CO2 score
180 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
118 hp/t
88 kW/t
8.5 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 Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi
Consumption7.9 L/100 km29.8 mpg US35.8 mpg UK4.8 L/100 km49 mpg US58.9 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km13.83 LC100 km8.40 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi22.25 LC100 mi13.52 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used1,185 L313 US gal261 UK gal720 L190 US gal158 UK gal
Annual fuel cost2,074 LC/year1,260 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost

  • Has 70 hp more
  • Has 10 km/h (6 mph) higher top speed
  • Has 27 hp/t better power-to-weight

Pros

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

Cons

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

Ford C-MAX II Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi

  • Has 55 Nm more
  • Is 214 kg lighter
  • Is 0.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Uses 3.1 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 364 km (226 mi) more estimated range
  • Has 132 L more trunk volume

Pros

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
  • Highest torque
  • 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 2.0 TDCi
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAX II2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 TDCi
1.6 EcoBoost
VS
FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCivsFordC-MAX II1.6 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 Bi-Turbo EcoBlue
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAX IIFacelift 20192.0 Bi-Turbo EcoBlue
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAXFacelift 20102.0 EcoBoost
2.0 TDCi
2.0 TDCi
VS
FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCivsFordGalaxy III2.0 TDCi
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 TSI
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenSharan IIFacelift 20152.0 TSI
2.0 TDCi
1.8 TSI
VS
FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCivsVolkswagenTouran II1.8 TSI
2.0 EcoBoost
225i
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsBMW2 Series Active Tourer (F45)225i
2.0 EcoBoost
2.5 i 20V
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsFordS-MAX2.5 i 20V
2.0 TDCi
218d
VS
FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCivsBMW2 Series Gran Tourer (F46)218d
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 TSI
VS
FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenSharan II2.0 TSI
2.0 TDCi
2.0 TDI
VS
FordC-MAX IIFacelift 20152.0 TDCivsVolkswagenTouran IFacelift 20102.0 TDI
Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost vs Ford C-MAX II · Facelift 2015 2.0 TDCi - car comparison - FastVsFaster