Compare two cars

Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion

Car #1
Make
Model
Variant
Engine
Car #2
Make
Model
Variant
Engine

compare selected cars
2003. - 2007.
M - MPV
MPV, 5 door
front
Badges
Production
Vehicle class
Body style
Wheel drive
Safety
2004. - 2009.
M - MPV
MPV, 5 door
front

Marketing

!function(v,t,o){var a=t.createElement("script");a.src="https://ad.vidverto.io/vidverto/js/aries/v1/invocation.js",a.setAttribute("fetchpriority","high");var r=v.top;r.document.head.appendChild(a),v.self!==v.top&&(v.frameElement.style.cssText="width:0px!important;height:0px!important;"),r.aries=r.aries||{},r.aries.v1=r.aries.v1||{commands:[]};var c=r.aries.v1;c.commands.push((function(){var d=document.getElementById("_vidverto-725dc94bb887f000f0b279c49613751c");d.setAttribute("id",(d.getAttribute("id")+(new Date()).getTime()));var t=v.frameElement||d;c.mount("10285",t,{width:720,height:405})}))}(window,document); */ ?>

Dimensons & Outlines

4333 mm
1825 mm
1595 mm
550 liters
1620 liters
55 liters
Length
Width
Height
Boot (min)
Boot (max)
Fuel tank
4280 mm
1768 mm
1568 mm
409 liters
1320 liters
55 liters
2003 Ford C-Max
2004 Seat Altea

Engine

Peugeot / Ford
2.0 DW10 BTED4 / RHR
Diesel
4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Turbo
1997 cc
136 hp
320 Nm
Engine
Fuel
Configuration
Aspiration
Displacement
Power
Torque
Volkswagen
2.0 TDI BKD
Diesel
4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Turbo
1968 cc
140 hp
310 Nm

Performance (manual gearbox)

manual gearbox - 6 gears
1427 kg
9.6 s
200 km/h
7.5 l/100km
4.5 l/100km
5.6 l/100km
148 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
manual gearbox - 6 gears
1405 kg
9.9 s
201 km/h
7.6 l/100km
4.7 l/100km
5.8 l/100km
160 g/km

Performance (automatic gearbox)

 
kg
s
km/h
l/100km
l/100km
l/100km
g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
automatic - 6 gears
1445 kg
9.8 s
201 km/h
7.4 l/100km
5.1 l/100km
6.0 l/100km
161 g/km

Expenses

1200 EUR
Price from
2100 EUR

Virtual Adviser's™ opinion

Overview

Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the mpv segment and utilize the same 5-door MPV body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Peugeot-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 136hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 140hp engine designed by Volkswagen.

Safety

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the Seat being a slightly better choice apparently. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the mpv segment, which is generally a good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the American car offers a marginal difference of 2% more metal.

Reliability

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Ford does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Ford with an average rating of 4.4, and models under the Seat badge with 4.5 out of 5. Independent research findings rank C-Max as average reliability-wise, and Altea is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the American car rank it on average as 4.2, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.3 out of 5.

Performance & Fuel economy

Ford is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.3 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 200 kilometers per hour, 1km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.7 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (50 mpg), in combined cycle.


Verdict

Ford appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the Spanish car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. When it comes to performance, both vehicles provide similar experience, so I wouldn't point any of them out. the American car still consumps less fuel, which needs to be taken into consideration. It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Ford. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.

Related articles

author: AutoManiac date: 2016-05-16

Back in the 80's it was virtually impossible to describe any Volvo car without using insanely high number of superlatives. The MOST safe, the MOST reliable, the MOST comfortable... Still, they were puzzled on how to reach to a young drivers' hearts, creating the MOST interesting...

Check a car by its VIN number

Follow us

AutoManiac Instagram

AutoManiac Facebook

AutoManiac database currently covers:

47worldwide automotive brands
1.592different vehicle models
2.311engines
14.428specific cars