Ford S-MAX
Car comparison
Ford S-MAX 2.5 i 20VvsFord Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonFord Galaxy III
2.0 EcoBoost
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost
- Most powerful240 hp179 kW
- Highest torque345 Nm254 lb-ft
- Lightest1,658 kg3,655 lb
- Best power-to-weight145 hp/t108 kW/t6.9 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption7.9 L/100 km29.8 mpg US35.8 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption10.3 L/100 km22.8 mpg US27.4 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption6.5 L/100 km36.2 mpg US43.5 mpg UK
- Best estimated range886 km551 mi
- Best economy score86/100
Ford S-MAX 2.5 i 20V
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.9 s
- Fastest top speed230 km/h143 mph
- Largest trunk854 L
- Best overall score64/100
- Best performance score50/100
- Best practicality score95/100
Specification comparison
| Model | FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 220hp164kW | 240hp179kW |
| Torque | 320Nm236lb-ft | 345Nm254lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,681kg3,706lb | 1,658kg3,655lb |
| Gross weight | 2,420kg5,335lb | 2,585kg5,699lb |
| Top speed | 230 km/h 143 mph | 222 km/h 138 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 101.8s99% target: 228 km/h / 141 mph Calculated | 98.7s99% target: 220 km/h / 137 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.9s | 8.6s |
| 0-200 km/h | 37.5s Calculated | 43.3s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.5s Calculated | 8.1s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 9.4L/100 km25mpg US30.1mpg UK | 7.9L/100 km29.8mpg US35.8mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 13.3L/100 km17.7mpg US21.2mpg UK | 10.3L/100 km22.8mpg US27.4mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 7.1L/100 km33.1mpg US39.8mpg UK | 6.5L/100 km36.2mpg US43.5mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.7s Calculated | 16.2s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 131hp/t98kW/t59hp/1000 lb Calculated | 145hp/t108kW/t66hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 190Nm/t127lb-ft/ton Calculated | 208Nm/t139lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 745km463mi Calculated | 886km551mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 2,522cc154cu in | 1,999cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,768mm188in | 4,848mm191in |
| Width | 1,884mm74in | 1,916mm75in |
| Height | 1,658mm65in | 1,747mm69in |
| Wheelbase | 2,850mm112in | 2,849mm112in |
| Front track | 1,589mm63in | 1,606mm63in |
| Rear track | 1,605mm63in | 1,606mm63in |
| Ground clearance | - | 124mm5in |
| Trunk volume | 854L | 300L |
| Max trunk volume | 2,100L | 2,339L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 7 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 70L | 70L |
| 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 S-MAX 2.5 i 20V: Power / Torque
- Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 5,000 rpm | 1,500-4,800 rpm | 5,250 rpm |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 5,400 rpm | 2,300-4,900 rpm | 5,650 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.5 s | 8.1 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.9 s | 8.6 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 37.5 s | 43.3 s |
| Top speed | 230 km/h 143 mph | 222 km/h 138 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.5 s | 2.6 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 | 13.2 s | 13.7 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.7 s | 16.2 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 145 km/h 90 mph | 142 km/h 88 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 220 hp 164 kW |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 240 hp 179 kW |
Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost has 20 hp more than Ford S-MAX 2.5 i 20V.
The biggest power difference is between Ford S-MAX 2.5 i 20V and Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost: 20 hp (15 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 320 Nm 236 lb-ft |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 345 Nm 254 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 1,681 kg 3,706 lb |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 1,658 kg 3,655 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 230 km/h 143 mph |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 222 km/h 138 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 7.9 s |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 8.6 s |
Although Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost has more power, Ford S-MAX 2.5 i 20V is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Ford S-MAX 2.5 i 20V and Ford Galaxy III 2.0 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 |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost and Ford S-MAX 2.5 i 20V: 1.5 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 131 hp/t 98 kW/t 7.6 kg/hp |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 145 hp/t 108 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 745 km 463 mi |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 886 km 551 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 220 hp 164 kW | 7.9 s | 230 km/h 143 mph |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 240 hp 179 kW | 8.6 s | 222 km/h 138 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-MAX2.5 i 20V |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| FordGalaxy III2.0 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-MAX2.5 i 20V |
| 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | ||||||
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost |
| 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 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.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | 7.9 s |
| FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK | 8.6 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-MAX2.5 i 20V | 131 hp/t 98 kW/t 7.6 kg/hp | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK |
| 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 |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | FordS-MAX2.5 i 20V | FordGalaxy III2.0 EcoBoost | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 220 hp 164 kW | 240 hp 179 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 320 Nm 236 lb-ft | 345 Nm 254 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.9 s | 8.6 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 230 km/h 143 mph | 222 km/h 138 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,681 kg 3,706 lb | 1,658 kg 3,655 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 745 km 463 mi | 886 km 551 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | - | 180 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 854 L 30.2 cu ft | 300 L 10.6 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 131 hp/t 98 kW/t 7.6 kg/hp | 145 hp/t 108 kW/t 6.9 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 2.5 i 20V | Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 9.4 L/100 km25 mpg US30.1 mpg UK | 7.9 L/100 km29.8 mpg US35.8 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 16.45 LC100 km | 13.83 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 26.47 LC100 mi | 22.25 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,410 L372 US gal310 UK gal | 1,185 L313 US gal261 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,468 LC/year | 2,074 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Ford S-MAX 2.5 i 20V
- Is 0.7 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 8 km/h (5 mph) higher top speed
- Has 554 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
Ford Galaxy III 2.0 EcoBoost
- Has 20 hp more
- Has 25 Nm more
- Is 23 kg lighter
- Uses 1.5 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 14 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 141 km (88 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























