Compare performance (168 HP vs 115 HP), boot space and price (23,900 £ vs 20,400 £ ) at a glance. Find out which car is the better choice for you – Ford Puma or Kia Stonic?
All details on performance, efficiency, range and trunk space can be found in the technical comparison below – including user reviews for both models.
In the bustling world of compact SUVs, the Ford Puma and Kia Stonic shine as two notable contenders. Both vehicles offer an attractive blend of technology, efficiency, and style, positioning themselves as strong players in this competitive segment. Let's delve into their technical aspects and innovations to help you make an informed choice.
The Ford Puma stands out with its diverse engine options, including Petrol MHEV and Electric variants. The Puma's power ranges from 125 to 160 HP for petrol engines and reaches up to 168 HP on the electric model. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h varies between a swift 8 to 9.8 seconds depending on the version, promising a dynamic driving experience. Additionally, the Puma offers a top speed of up to 210 km/h.
On the other hand, the Kia Stonic is primarily powered by Petrol and Petrol MHEV engines, offering between 79 and 100 HP. Although not as powerful as the Puma, the Stonic delivers reliable performance with an acceleration between 11.3 to 14.2 seconds from 0-100 km/h. The Stonic reaches a maximum speed of 179 km/h, ensuring a steady drive suitable for urban commuting.
Both models offer manual and automatic transmission options. The Ford Puma includes a manual gearbox, dual-clutch automatic, and reduction gearbox, catering to a wide range of driving preferences. Similarly, the Kia Stonic comes with a manual gearbox and a dual-clutch automatic, highlighting flexibility for drivers seeking a more hands-on approach or a seamless automatic experience.
The fuel consumption for the Ford Puma varies between 5.4 to 6 L/100 km for the petrol variants and an efficient 13.1 to 13.7 kWh/100 km for the electric option, boasting an impressive electric range of up to 376 km. With CO2 emissions ranging from 0 to 136 g/km, the Puma shows versatility in its eco-friendly aspirations.
Comparatively, the Kia Stonic displays a fuel consumption rate between 5.5 to 5.8 L/100 km, with CO2 emissions locked between 125 to 132 g/km. While its eco credentials are slightly less impressive than the Puma's, the Stonic maintains a respectable rating within its class.
The Ford Puma presents a sturdy SUV profile with dimensions of 4186 to 4226 mm in length, 1805 mm in width, and a height of 1550 to 1555 mm. It offers ample trunk capacity ranging from 456 to 523 liters, making it a practical choice for storage and everyday use.
The Kia Stonic, while slightly more compact, measures 4140 mm in length, 1760 mm in width, and 1505 mm in height. It offers a trunk capacity of 352 liters, providing adequate space for small families or urban adventures.
Choosing between the Ford Puma and Kia Stonic depends heavily on individual preferences and needs. The Puma is favored for its powerful performance, innovative hybrid technology, and flexibility. Meanwhile, the Stonic shines with its practicality and reliable efficiency, offering an appealing package for those who prioritize a straightforward, efficient urban vehicle. Ultimately, both SUVs represent the exemplary shift towards modern, compact automotive solutions, catering to diverse lifestyles and driving desires.
Looking at overall running costs, both models reveal some interesting differences in everyday economy.
Kia Stonic is slightly cheaper – starting at 20,400 £ , while the Ford Puma costs 23,900 £ . That’s a price difference of around 3,523 £.
Fuel consumption also shows a difference: the Ford Puma uses 5.4 L/100km and is marginally more efficient than the Kia Stonic with 5.6 L/100km. The difference is about 0.2 L/100km.
Power, torque and acceleration are the classic benchmarks for car enthusiasts – and here, some clear differences start to show.
When it comes to engine power, the Ford Puma offers visibly more power – delivering 168 HP compared to 115 HP. That’s roughly 53 HP more horsepower.
When accelerating from 0 to 100 km/h, the Ford Puma is significantly quicker – completing the sprint in 7.4 s, while the Kia Stonic takes 10.7 s. That’s about 3.3 s quicker.
There’s also a difference in torque: the Ford Puma delivers markedly more torque with 290 Nm compared to 200 Nm. That’s about 90 Nm more.
Cabin size, boot volume and payload all play a role in everyday practicality. Here, comfort and flexibility make the difference.
Both vehicles offer seating for 5 people.
In terms of curb weight, Kia Stonic is marginally lighter – 1,205 kg compared to 1,316 kg. The difference is around 111 kg.
Looking at boot space, the Ford Puma offers clearly more boot space – 523 L compared to 352 L. That’s a difference of about 171 L.
When it comes to payload, the Ford Puma carries only slightly more – 469 kg compared to 445 kg. That’s a difference of about 24 kg.
The Ford Puma stands well ahead of its rival in the objective data comparison.
This result only shows which model scores more points on paper – not which of the two cars feels right for you.
The Ford Puma blends sporty styling with practical everyday usability, making it a smart choice for drivers who want flair without sacrificing versatility. Its engaging driving character and clever interior packaging give it a more dynamic and useful feel than many rivals.
details
The Kia Stonic is a compact crossover that pairs nimble city manners with a surprisingly spacious and comfortable cabin. It’s a practical, well-equipped choice for buyers who value sensible features, approachable styling and easy everyday usability.
details
Costs and Consumption |
|
|---|---|
|
Price
23,900 - 36,300 £
|
Price
20,400 - 26,800 £
|
|
Consumption L/100km
5.4 - 5.9 L/100km
|
Consumption L/100km
5.6 - 5.7 L/100km
|
|
Consumption kWh/100km
13 - 13.9 kWh/100km
|
Consumption kWh/100km
-
|
|
Electric Range
404 - 417 km
|
Electric Range
-
|
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
|
co2
0 - 135 g/km
|
co2
126 - 128 g/km
|
|
Fuel tank capacity
-
|
Fuel tank capacity
-
|
Dimensions and Body |
|
|---|---|
|
Body Type
SUV
|
Body Type
SUV
|
|
Seats
5
|
Seats
5
|
|
Doors
-
|
Doors
-
|
|
Curb weight
1,316 - 1,563 kg
|
Curb weight
1,205 - 1,270 kg
|
|
Trunk capacity
456 - 523 L
|
Trunk capacity
352 L
|
|
Length
-
|
Length
-
|
|
Width
1,805 mm
|
Width
1,760 mm
|
|
Height
-
|
Height
-
|
|
Max trunk capacity
-
|
Max trunk capacity
-
|
|
Payload
367 - 469 kg
|
Payload
440 - 445 kg
|
Engine and Performance |
|
|---|---|
|
Engine Type
Petrol MHEV, Electric
|
Engine Type
Petrol, Petrol MHEV
|
|
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
|
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
|
|
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Dual-Clutch Automatic, Reduction Gearbox
|
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Dual-Clutch Automatic
|
|
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive
|
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive
|
|
Power HP
125 - 168 HP
|
Power HP
100 - 115 HP
|
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
7.4 - 9.8 s
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
10.7 - 12.1 s
|
|
Max Speed
-
|
Max Speed
-
|
|
Torque
170 - 290 Nm
|
Torque
172 - 200 Nm
|
|
Number of Cylinders
3
|
Number of Cylinders
3
|
|
Power kW
92 - 124 kW
|
Power kW
74 - 85 kW
|
|
Engine capacity
999 cm3
|
Engine capacity
998 cm3
|
General |
|
|---|---|
|
Model Year
2,025 - 2,026
|
Model Year
2025
|
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
D, A
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
D
|
|
Brand
Ford
|
Brand
Kia
|
Deutschland
France
Nederland
Great Britain
Sverige
Danmark
Suomi
Italia
Polska
Česko
España