Car comparison

Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoostvsMazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G

Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.

New comparison

Ford Puma

1.0 EcoBoost

155 hpGasolineFWDManualTurbochargedSUV2019-2020
VS

Mazda CX-30

2.0 e-Skyactiv G

150 hp1998 ccGasolineAWDManualNaturally aspiratedSUV2020-present

Comparison overview

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

Best choices

Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h
    9.0 s
  • Fastest top speed
    210 km/h
    130 mph Unrestricted
    200 km/h
    124 mph Restricted
  • Most powerful
    155 hp
    116 kW
  • Highest torque
    240 Nm
    177 lb-ft
  • Lightest
    1,205 kg
    2,657 lb
  • Best power-to-weight
    129 hp/t
    96 kW/t
    7.8 kg/hp
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    4.5 L/100 km
    52.3 mpg US
    62.8 mpg UK
  • Lowest city consumption
    5.1 L/100 km
    46.1 mpg US
    55.4 mpg UK
  • Lowest highway consumption
    4.1 L/100 km
    57.4 mpg US
    68.9 mpg UK
  • Best estimated range
    933 km
    580 mi
  • Largest trunk
    468 L
  • Best overall score
    55/100
  • Best performance score
    42/100
  • Best economy score
    95/100
  • Best practicality score
    82/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelFordPuma1.0 EcoBoostMazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
Power
155hp116kW
150hp112kW
Torque
240Nm177lb-ft
213Nm157lb-ft
Curb weight
1,205kg2,657lb
1,477kg3,256lb
Gross weight
1,765kg3,891lb
1,995kg4,398lb
Top speed
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
Calculated
195 km/h
121 mph
To 99% top speed
82.3s99% target: 208 km/h / 129 mph
Calculated
78.6s99% target: 193 km/h / 120 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
9.0s
9.1s
0-200 km/h
51.6s
Calculated
-
0-60 mph
8.5s
Calculated
8.6s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
4.5L/100 km52.3mpg US62.8mpg UK
5.4L/100 km43.6mpg US52.3mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
5.1L/100 km46.1mpg US55.4mpg UK
6.5L/100 km36.2mpg US43.5mpg UK
Fuel consumption highway
4.1L/100 km57.4mpg US68.9mpg UK
4.8L/100 km49mpg US58.9mpg UK
Quarter mile
16.5s
Calculated
16.6s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
129hp/t96kW/t58hp/1000 lb
Calculated
102hp/t76kW/t46hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
199Nm/t133lb-ft/ton
Calculated
144Nm/t96lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
933km580mi
Calculated
889km552mi
Calculated
Displacement-
1,998cc122cu in
Length
4,207mm166in
4,395mm173in
Width
1,805mm71in
1,795mm71in
Height
1,538mm61in
1,540mm61in
Wheelbase
2,588mm102in
2,655mm105in
Ground clearance-
175mm7in
Trunk volume
468L
430L
Max trunk volume
1,161L
1,406L
Doors
5
5
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank
42L
48L
CO2 emissions
101g/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 Puma 1.0 EcoBoostMazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv GPowerTorque
  • Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
  • Mazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost6,000 rpm1,750 rpm6,250 rpm
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G6,000 rpm4,000 rpm6,250 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricFordPuma1.0 EcoBoostMazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
8.5 s
8.6 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
9.0 s
9.1 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
51.6 s
-
Top speed
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
Likely limited
195 km/h
121 mph
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.8 s
2.7 s
330 ft
101 m
7.3 s
7.2 s
1/8 mile
201 m
10.9 s
10.8 s
1000 ft
305 m
14.0 s
14.0 s
1/4 mile
402 m
16.5 s
16.6 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
141 km/h
87 mph
137 km/h
85 mph

Power comparison

Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
155 hp
116 kW
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
150 hp
112 kW

Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost has 5 hp more than Mazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G.

The biggest power difference is between Mazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G and Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost: 5 hp (4 kW).

Torque comparison

Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
240 Nm
177 lb-ft
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
213 Nm
157 lb-ft

Curb weight comparison

Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
1,205 kg
2,657 lb
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
1,477 kg
3,256 lb

Top speed without limiter comparison

Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
195 km/h
121 mph

0-100 km/h comparison

Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost9.0 s
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G9.1 s

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost and Mazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G: 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
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
4.5 L/100 km
52.3 mpg US
62.8 mpg UK
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
5.4 L/100 km
43.6 mpg US
52.3 mpg UK

The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost and Mazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G: 0.9 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
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
129 hp/t
96 kW/t
7.8 kg/hp
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
102 hp/t
76 kW/t
9.8 kg/hp

Estimated range comparison

Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
933 km
580 mi
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
889 km
552 mi

Performance spider chart

Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.

Chart data table
VehiclePowerAccelerationTop speed
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
155 hp
116 kW
9.0 s
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
150 hp
112 kW
9.1 s
195 km/h
121 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
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
Power
155 hp
116 kW
0-100 km/h9.0 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
468 L
16.5 cu ft
Length
4,207 mm
165.6 in
Height
1,538 mm
60.6 in
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
Power
150 hp
112 kW
0-100 km/h9.1 s
Top speed
195 km/h
121 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
430 L
15.2 cu ft
Length
4,395 mm
173.0 in
Height
1,540 mm
60.6 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
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
Power
155 hp
116 kW
0-100 km/h9.0 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
4.5 L/100 km
52.3 mpg US
62.8 mpg UK
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
Power
150 hp
112 kW
0-100 km/h9.1 s
Top speed
195 km/h
121 mph
5.4 L/100 km
43.6 mpg US
52.3 mpg UK

Ford Puma 1.0 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
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
4.5 L/100 km
52.3 mpg US
62.8 mpg UK
9.0 s
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
5.4 L/100 km
43.6 mpg US
52.3 mpg UK
9.1 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
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoost
129 hp/t
96 kW/t
7.8 kg/hp
4.5 L/100 km
52.3 mpg US
62.8 mpg UK
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
102 hp/t
76 kW/t
9.8 kg/hp
5.4 L/100 km
43.6 mpg US
52.3 mpg UK

Detailed score breakdown

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleFordPuma1.0 EcoBoostMazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
Power
155 hp
116 kW
150 hp
112 kW
Torque
240 Nm
177 lb-ft
213 Nm
157 lb-ft
Acceleration
9.0 s
9.1 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
195 km/h
121 mph
Lightness
1,205 kg
2,657 lb
1,477 kg
3,256 lb
Fuel consumption
4.5 L/100 km
52.3 mpg US
62.8 mpg UK
5.4 L/100 km
43.6 mpg US
52.3 mpg UK
Practicality
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
468 L
16.5 cu ft
Length
4,207 mm
165.6 in
Height
1,538 mm
60.6 in
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
430 L
15.2 cu ft
Length
4,395 mm
173.0 in
Height
1,540 mm
60.6 in
Range score
933 km
580 mi
889 km
552 mi
CO2 score
101 g/km
-
Trunk score
468 L
16.5 cu ft
430 L
15.2 cu ft
Power-to-weight score
129 hp/t
96 kW/t
7.8 kg/hp
102 hp/t
76 kW/t
9.8 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 Puma 1.0 EcoBoostMazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G
Consumption4.5 L/100 km52.3 mpg US62.8 mpg UK5.4 L/100 km43.6 mpg US52.3 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km7.88 LC100 km9.45 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi12.67 LC100 mi15.21 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used675 L178 US gal148 UK gal810 L214 US gal178 UK gal
Annual fuel cost1,181 LC/year1,418 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost

  • Has 5 hp more
  • Has 27 Nm more
  • Is 272 kg lighter
  • Is 0.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Has 15 km/h (9 mph) higher top speed
  • Uses 0.9 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 27 hp/t better power-to-weight
  • Has 44 km (28 mi) more estimated range
  • Has 38 L more trunk volume

Pros

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
  • Highest top speed
  • Most powerful
  • Highest torque
  • Lightest
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
  • Best power-to-weight ratio
  • Best estimated range
  • Largest trunk

Mazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G

No measurable advantages in the available data.

Cons

  • Slowest 0-100 km/h
  • Lowest power
  • Highest combined fuel consumption
  • Heaviest
  • Lowest top speed
  • Smallest trunk

Choose cars to compare

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost
Mazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

1.0 EcoBoost
1.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoostvsFordPumaFacelift 20241.0 EcoBoost
2.0 e-Skyactiv G
2.0 SKYACTIV-G
VS
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv GvsMazdaCX-3Facelift 20182.0 SKYACTIV-G
1.0 EcoBoost
1.5 TSI
VS
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenT-Cross1.5 TSI
2.0 e-Skyactiv G
2.0i
VS
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv GvsMazdaCX-32.0i
1.0 EcoBoost
35 TFSI
VS
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoostvsAUDIQ2L35 TFSI
2.0 e-Skyactiv G
2.2d
VS
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv GvsMazdaCX-5Facelift 20152.2d
1.0 EcoBoost
2.0 e-Skyactiv G
VS
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoostvsMazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv G
2.0 e-Skyactiv G
3.3 e-Skyactiv D
VS
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv GvsMazdaCX-603.3 e-Skyactiv D
1.0 EcoBoost
Cooper D 2.0
VS
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoostvsMiniCountryman (F60)Cooper D 2.0
1.0 EcoBoost
1.2 PureTech
VS
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoostvsPeugeot2008 II1.2 PureTech
2.0 e-Skyactiv G
18d
VS
MazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv GvsBMWX2 (F39)18d
1.0 EcoBoost
35 TFSI
VS
FordPuma1.0 EcoBoostvsAUDIQ235 TFSI
Ford Puma 1.0 EcoBoost vs Mazda CX-30 2.0 e-Skyactiv G - car comparison - FastVsFaster