Car comparison

Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoostvsMazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv

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

New comparison

Ford Puma

ST 1.5 EcoBoost

200 hp1496 ccGasolineFWDManualTurbochargedSUV2020-2024
VS

Mazda CX-60

2.5 e-Skyactiv

192 hp2488 ccHybridAWDAutomaticNaturally aspiratedSUV2022-present

Comparison overview

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

Best choices

Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost

  • Fastest top speed
    230 km/h
    143 mph Unrestricted
    220 km/h
    137 mph Restricted
  • Most powerful
    200 hp
    149 kW
  • Highest torque
    320 Nm
    236 lb-ft
  • Lightest
    1,358 kg
    2,994 lb
  • Best power-to-weight
    147 hp/t
    110 kW/t
    6.8 kg/hp
  • Best overall score
    63/100
  • Best performance score
    54/100

Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h
    5.8 s
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    1.5 L/100 km
    156.8 mpg US
    188.3 mpg UK
  • Largest trunk
    477 L
  • Best economy score
    100/100
  • Best practicality score
    84/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelFordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoostMazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
Power
200hp149kW
192hp143kW
Torque
320Nm236lb-ft
261Nm193lb-ft
Curb weight
1,358kg2,994lb
2,072kg4,568lb
Gross weight
1,815kg4,001lb
2,667kg5,880lb
Top speed
Unrestricted
230 km/h143 mph
Restricted
220 km/h137 mph
Calculated
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
Calculated
To 99% top speed
68.1s99% target: 228 km/h / 141 mph
Calculated
64.2s99% target: 208 km/h / 129 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
6.7s
5.8s
0-200 km/h
27.5s
Calculated
38.7s
Calculated
0-60 mph
6.4s
Calculated
5.5s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
6L/100 km39.2mpg US47.1mpg UK
1.5L/100 km156.8mpg US188.3mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
7.6L/100 km30.9mpg US37.2mpg UK
-
Fuel consumption highway
5L/100 km47mpg US56.5mpg UK
-
Quarter mile
14.7s
Calculated
14.1s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
147hp/t110kW/t67hp/1000 lb
Calculated
93hp/t69kW/t42hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
236Nm/t158lb-ft/ton
Calculated
126Nm/t84lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range-
3,333km2,071mi
Calculated
Displacement
1,496cc91cu in
2,488cc152cu in
Length
4,226mm166in
4,745mm187in
Width
1,805mm71in
1,890mm74in
Height
1,520mm60in
1,685mm66in
Wheelbase
2,588mm102in
2,870mm113in
Front track-
1,640mm65in
Rear track-
1,645mm65in
Ground clearance
152mm6in
175mm7in
Trunk volume
456L
477L
Max trunk volume
1,216L
1,726L
Doors
5
5
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank-
50L

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 ST 1.5 EcoBoostMazda CX-60 2.5 e-SkyactivPowerTorque
  • Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
  • Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost6,000 rpm2,500-3,500 rpm6,250 rpm
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv6,000 rpm-6,250 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricFordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoostMazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
6.4 s
5.5 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
6.7 s
5.8 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
27.5 s
38.7 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
230 km/h143 mph
Restricted
220 km/h137 mph
Likely limited
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
Limited
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.5 s
2.2 s
330 ft
101 m
6.5 s
5.9 s
1/8 mile
201 m
9.7 s
9.1 s
1000 ft
305 m
12.4 s
11.8 s
1/4 mile
402 m
14.7 s
14.1 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
158 km/h
98 mph
155 km/h
96 mph

Power comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
200 hp
149 kW
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
192 hp
143 kW

Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost has 8 hp more than Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv.

The biggest power difference is between Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv and Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost: 8 hp (6 kW).

Torque comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
320 Nm
236 lb-ft
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
261 Nm
193 lb-ft

Curb weight comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
1,358 kg
2,994 lb
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
2,072 kg
4,568 lb

Top speed without limiter comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
Unrestricted
230 km/h143 mph
Restricted
220 km/h137 mph
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph

0-100 km/h comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost6.7 s
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv5.8 s

Although Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost has more power, Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv is quicker from 0-100 km/h.

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv and Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost: 0.9 s.

Fuel consumption comparison

Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 mpg UK
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
1.5 L/100 km
156.8 mpg US
188.3 mpg UK

The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv and Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost: 4.5 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
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
147 hp/t
110 kW/t
6.8 kg/hp
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
93 hp/t
69 kW/t
10.8 kg/hp

Performance spider chart

Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.

Chart data table
VehiclePowerAccelerationTop speed
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
200 hp
149 kW
6.7 s
Unrestricted
230 km/h143 mph
Restricted
220 km/h137 mph
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
192 hp
143 kW
5.8 s
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 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
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
Power
200 hp
149 kW
0-100 km/h6.7 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
230 km/h143 mph
Restricted
220 km/h137 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
456 L
16.1 cu ft
Length
4,226 mm
166.4 in
Height
1,520 mm
59.8 in
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
Power
192 hp
143 kW
0-100 km/h5.8 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
477 L
16.8 cu ft
Length
4,745 mm
186.8 in
Height
1,685 mm
66.3 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
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
Power
200 hp
149 kW
0-100 km/h6.7 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
230 km/h143 mph
Restricted
220 km/h137 mph
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 mpg UK
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
Power
192 hp
143 kW
0-100 km/h5.8 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
1.5 L/100 km
156.8 mpg US
188.3 mpg UK

Ford Puma ST 1.5 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
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 mpg UK
6.7 s
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
1.5 L/100 km
156.8 mpg US
188.3 mpg UK
5.8 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
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
147 hp/t
110 kW/t
6.8 kg/hp
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 mpg UK
MazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
93 hp/t
69 kW/t
10.8 kg/hp
1.5 L/100 km
156.8 mpg US
188.3 mpg UK

Detailed score breakdown

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleFordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoostMazdaCX-602.5 e-Skyactiv
Power
200 hp
149 kW
192 hp
143 kW
Torque
320 Nm
236 lb-ft
261 Nm
193 lb-ft
Acceleration
6.7 s
5.8 s
Top speed
Unrestricted
230 km/h143 mph
Restricted
220 km/h137 mph
Unrestricted
210 km/h130 mph
Restricted
200 km/h124 mph
Lightness
1,358 kg
2,994 lb
2,072 kg
4,568 lb
Fuel consumption
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 mpg UK
1.5 L/100 km
156.8 mpg US
188.3 mpg UK
Practicality
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
456 L
16.1 cu ft
Length
4,226 mm
166.4 in
Height
1,520 mm
59.8 in
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
477 L
16.8 cu ft
Length
4,745 mm
186.8 in
Height
1,685 mm
66.3 in
Range score
-
3,333 km
2,071 mi
Trunk score
456 L
16.1 cu ft
477 L
16.8 cu ft
Power-to-weight score
147 hp/t
110 kW/t
6.8 kg/hp
93 hp/t
69 kW/t
10.8 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 ST 1.5 EcoBoostMazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv
Consumption6 L/100 km39.2 mpg US47.1 mpg UK1.5 L/100 km156.8 mpg US188.3 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km10.50 LC100 km2.63 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi16.90 LC100 mi4.22 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used900 L238 US gal198 UK gal225 L59 US gal49 UK gal
Annual fuel cost1,575 LC/year393.75 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost

  • Has 8 hp more
  • Has 59 Nm more
  • Is 714 kg lighter
  • Has 20 km/h (12 mph) higher top speed
  • Has 55 hp/t better power-to-weight

Pros

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

Cons

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

Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv

  • Is 0.9 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Uses 4.5 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 21 L more trunk volume

Pros

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
  • Largest trunk

Cons

  • Lowest power
  • Heaviest
  • Lowest top speed

Choose cars to compare

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost
Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

ST 1.5 EcoBoost
ST 1.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoostvsFordPumaFacelift 2024ST 1.0 EcoBoost
2.5 e-Skyactiv
2.0 e-Skyactiv X
VS
MazdaCX-602.5 e-SkyactivvsMazdaCX-302.0 e-Skyactiv X
ST 1.5 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoostvsFordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
2.5 e-Skyactiv
1.5i P300e
VS
MazdaCX-602.5 e-SkyactivvsJaguarE-PaceFacelift 20201.5i P300e
ST 1.5 EcoBoost
40 TDI
VS
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoostvsAUDIQ3 II (F3)40 TDI
2.5 e-Skyactiv
2.0 TSI
VS
MazdaCX-602.5 e-SkyactivvsCupraFormentor2.0 TSI
2.5 e-Skyactiv
350h
VS
MazdaCX-602.5 e-SkyactivvsLexusNX II (AZ20)350h
ST 1.5 EcoBoost
2.2 MultiJet II
VS
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoostvsAlfa RomeoStelvio (949)Facelift 20222.2 MultiJet II
2.5 e-Skyactiv
2.0 TSI
VS
MazdaCX-602.5 e-SkyactivvsVolkswagenTiguan IIFacelift 20202.0 TSI
2.5 e-Skyactiv
GLA 220d
VS
MazdaCX-602.5 e-SkyactivvsMercedes-BenzGLA (H247)GLA 220d
ST 1.5 EcoBoost
40 TDI
VS
FordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoostvsAUDIQ5 II (FY)Facelift 202040 TDI
2.5 e-Skyactiv
2.0 SKYACTIV-G
VS
MazdaCX-602.5 e-SkyactivvsMazdaCX-3Facelift 20182.0 SKYACTIV-G
Ford Puma ST 1.5 EcoBoost vs Mazda CX-60 2.5 e-Skyactiv - car comparison - FastVsFaster