Chevrolet Orlando 1.4T 140HP manual vs Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual

Chevrolet Orlando 1.4T 140HP manual

Source: wikipedia.org M 93 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany

14 reasons for

Chevrolet Orlando, model available from 2010.
It has 1.4T 140HP petrol engine produced from 2012.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 6 speed gearbox.

11 reasons for

Ford C-MAX II Grand, model available from 2010.
It has 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP petrol engine produced from 2012.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 6 speed gearbox.

Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual
Chevrolet

14 reasons for Chevrolet Orlando 1.4T 140KM manual in comparison to Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual

Reasons for
135

Maximal power

140 > 125 hp
The horsepower is a parameter that majority of drivers pay the greatest attention to. In this comparison, it is the Chevrolet Orlando that has by 15 horsepower more than the Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual, which makes this vehicle a bit quicker. Having more horsepower the Chevrolet Orlando will as well provide slightly better flexiblility in specific speeds.
59

Maximal torque

200 > 170 Nm
Maximum torque of the Chevrolet Orlando is 18 percent bigger than the Ford C-MAX II. Because of this, the Chevrolet Orlando will accelerate somewhat faster and be better for overtaking other vehicles. Appropriate use of the flexibility of the engine may also make that the Chevrolet will burn up on average less fuel per 100 kilometers.
50

Acceleration 0-100 km/h

11 > 12.2 s
A little difference that amounts to 10 % suggests that the Ford C-MAX II Grand is the worst vehicle of these two . In the „minivan class, being represented by the Ford, the average acceleration to 100km/h amounts to 11.7 s and is by 0.5 s higher than this of Ford car.
33

Top speed

200 > 185 km/h
The maximum speed possible to be reached by the Chevrolet Orlando is higher as compared to this of the Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual which allows to cover the same distance on the highway faster. The difference that amounts to 8 % is small and is not realy noticable in daily use.
22

Width

2,165 > 1,826 mm
Width of a car influences on room in the cabin and also stability on road. The width of the Chevrolet Orlando is larger only by 19 % in relation to the Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual and is not really worth considering. The average for the „minivan” segment equals to 1,785 mm and is by 21 percent smaller than the same feature of the Chevrolet Orlando 1.4T 140HP manual.
19

Fuel tank

63 > 59 l
The winner of selected cars in the aspect of fuel tank size is Chevrolet Orlando that can hold by 4 l more petrol compared with the Ford C-MAX II.
14

Cylinders

4 > 3
8

Engine capacity

1,362 > 1,000 cc
The engine cubic capacity of the Chevrolet is by 36 percent bigger when compared to the Ford. In a consequence the Ford C-MAX II will be more fuel efficient, however, the engine of the Chevrolet Orlando will be of better quality, working more smoothly and less prone to breaking down.
8

Gross trailer weight

1,101 > 898 kg
6

Length

4,655 > 4,520 mm
The Chevrolet Orlando is 135 millimeters longer in relation to the Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual. The length of the vehicle is significant in terms of driving comfort and space in the boot. The Chevrolet Orlando very likely will be offering to it's passangers more space for legs. At the same time the Chevrolet Orlando will be better driven ,however, the Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual will be a slightly easier to park because of shorter length .
0

Maximal power RPM

4,900 > 6,000 revolutions/minute
0

Number of seats

7 > 6
0

Payload

2,179 > 2,146 kg
0

Curb weight

1,544 > 1,494 kg

Ford

11 reasons for Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125KM manual in comparison to Chevrolet Orlando 1.4T 140HP manual

Reasons for
112

Average consumption

5.2 > 6.2 l
The Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual burns up 16 percent less in the combined cycle when compared to the Chevrolet. The difference in the amount of 16 % is not significant. Nevertheless during a longer period of time it would allow you to make a considerable reduction of costs.
56

Urban consumption

6.6 > 7.6 l
The fuel consumption of the Ford is 1 liter lower when compared to the Chevrolet Orlando. Despite the fact that the difference is insensible, in the long term it can make that your car would be considerably cheper to run.
38

Trunk capacity

471 > 456 l
If you need a car for long trips, which could room more things in the boot , pick the Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual. The Chevrolet is equiped with by 3 percent less capable trunk compared with the Chevrolet so probably you would be able to carry one little suitcase less. Assessing the luggage compartment check its width length and height which have notable impact on loading possibility .
33

Trunk capacity with seats down

1,707 > 854 l
30

Maximal torque RPM

1,400 > 1,855 revolutions/minute
The RMP at which the maximum torque is reached indicates how fast an engine achieves its best output with growth in revolutions. The lower rmp or the wider range at which the torque is the greatest, the more the engine is flexible and a sensation of acceleration is felt faster.
24

Extra-urban consumption

4.6 > 5.4 l
19

Range

1,154 > 1,032 km
12

Urban range

938 > 842 km
11

Extra-urban range

1,304 > 1,185 km
8

Maximum load capacity

657 > 640 kg
1

Height

1,684 > 1,634 mm
If you are a tall man or you carry in the trunk thinks of large dimensions, the Ford C-MAX II, which is by 3 percent higher than the Chevrolet, would be better pick for you. However, compared vehicles do not differ much in its height and it should not be much perceptible.

Cars specifications

Chevrolet Orlando 1.4T 140HP manual Ford C-MAX II Grand 1.0 EcoBoost 125HP manual
    Gross trailer weight 1,101 kg 898 kg
    Price range popular popular
    Model release date 2010 2010
    Facelifting no no
    Class minivan minivan
By using this site, you agree to the storage and use of cookie files. OK