Compare performance (168 HP vs 150 HP), boot space and price (23,900 £ vs 26,400 £ ) at a glance. Find out which car is the better choice for you – Ford Puma or VW T-Roc?
All details on performance, efficiency, range and trunk space can be found in the technical comparison below – including user reviews for both models.
The automotive world is witnessing an intense showdown between two compact SUVs: the Ford Puma and the VW T-Roc. These vehicles, bold in their presence and performance, cater to an audience looking for efficient, versatile, and technologically advanced driving experiences. In this article, we'll delve into the technical aspects and innovations of these two popular models.
The Ford Puma offers a variety of engines, from the efficient 125 HP petrol mild-hybrid to the advanced fully electric version providing up to 160 HP. With a responsive choice of manual or dual-clutch automatic transmissions, the Puma emphasizes versatility. In terms of acceleration, the Puma reaches 0-100 km/h in as little as 7.4 seconds, offering spirited driving dynamics.
On the other hand, the VW T-Roc presents both petrol and diesel engine options. The spectrum ranges from a practical 115 HP petrol variant to a robust 300 HP engine for those who crave greater power. With both front-wheel and all-wheel-drive options available, the T-Roc caters to a wider range of driving preferences. It manages acceleration figures as quick as 4.9 seconds for a sportier drive, particularly in the performance-focused 300 HP variant.
Fuel economy plays a pivotal role in the appeal of both models. The Ford Puma's petrol engines boast fuel efficiencies ranging from 5.4 to 6.0 L/100 km, depending on the powertrain. Its electric variant shines with consumption figures as low as 13.1 kWh/100 km and an electric range of up to 376 km, appealing to environmentally conscious drivers.
The VW T-Roc holds its ground with practical fuel consumption figures between 4.7 and 8.5 L/100 km across its petrol and diesel variants. Despite not having an electric version, its efficient diesels make a compelling case for economical, long-distance driving.
In terms of design, both SUVs maintain their respective brand identities. The Ford Puma measures between 4186 mm and 4226 mm in length, with a width of 1805 mm, and stands about 1555 mm tall. These dimensions contribute to a sportier, compact feel without compromising interior space and comfort.
The VW T-Roc is slightly larger, with lengths varying from 4236 mm to 4271 mm and width around 1819 mm, while height ranges from 1527 mm to 1584 mm, providing a more robust and substantial presence on the road. Both cars offer seating for five, but the T-Roc's slightly larger dimensions grant it a slight edge in trunk capacity, which ranges from 392 to 445 liters compared to Puma’s 456 to 523 liters.
Both the Ford Puma and VW T-Roc are laden with technology, enhancing driver convenience and safety. The Puma incorporates Ford's Co-Pilot360, which offers an array of driver-assist technologies. Similarly, VW has packed the T-Roc with its latest tech, including a comprehensive suite of infotainment and connectivity options, ensuring both cars cater to modern tech enthusiasts.
In the clash between the Ford Puma and VW T-Roc, potential buyers have the pleasant dilemma of choosing between exceptional performance, efficiency, and technology. The Ford Puma stands out with its hybrid and electric offerings, appealing to eco-friendly users, while the VW T-Roc's robust engine lineup caters to those who prioritize power and versatility. Ultimately, the decision rests on individual brand loyalty and specific needs, both vehicles representing the pinnacle of compact SUV engineering.
When it comes to price and running costs, the biggest differences usually appear. This is often where you see which car fits your budget better in the long run.
Ford Puma is somewhat cheaper – starting at 23,900 £ , while the VW T-Roc costs 26,400 £ . That’s a price difference of around 2,524 £.
Fuel consumption also shows a difference: the Ford Puma uses 5.4 L/100km and is marginally more efficient than the VW T-Roc with 5.5 L/100km. The difference is about 0.1 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 moderately more power – delivering 168 HP compared to 150 HP. That’s roughly 18 HP more horsepower.
When accelerating from 0 to 100 km/h, the Ford Puma is noticeably quicker – completing the sprint in 7.4 s, while the VW T-Roc takes 8.9 s. That’s about 1.5 s quicker.
There’s also a difference in torque: the Ford Puma delivers moderately more torque with 290 Nm compared to 250 Nm. That’s about 40 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, Ford Puma is somewhat lighter – 1,316 kg compared to 1,465 kg. The difference is around 149 kg.
When it comes to payload, the VW T-Roc carries only slightly more – 515 kg compared to 469 kg. That’s a difference of about 46 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 is a cheeky compact crossover that blends sporty styling with city-friendly practicality, giving drivers a surprisingly fun and composed ride. With clever storage tricks and a lively personality, it’s a smart pick for buyers who want enjoyment without fuss.
details
The VW T-Roc mixes cheeky, coupe-like styling with the everyday sense and space of an SUV, so it looks fun without sacrificing family sense. It’s a likeable all-rounder with tidy road manners and plenty of personality, ideal if you want a car that’s practical enough for chores but entertaining enough to enjoy.
details
Costs and Consumption |
|
|---|---|
|
Price
23,900 - 36,300 £
|
Price
26,400 - 38,600 £
|
|
Consumption L/100km
5.4 - 5.9 L/100km
|
Consumption L/100km
5.5 - 6.3 L/100km
|
|
Consumption kWh/100km
13 - 13.7 kWh/100km
|
Consumption kWh/100km
-
|
|
Electric Range
404 - 417 km
|
Electric Range
-
|
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
|
co2
0 - 135 g/km
|
co2
126 - 143 g/km
|
|
Fuel tank capacity
-
|
Fuel tank capacity
-
|
Dimensions and Body |
|
|---|---|
|
Body Type
SUV
|
Body Type
SUV
|
|
Seats
5
|
Seats
4 - 5
|
|
Doors
-
|
Doors
-
|
|
Curb weight
1,316 - 1,563 kg
|
Curb weight
1,465 - 1,539 kg
|
|
Trunk capacity
-
|
Trunk capacity
284 L
|
|
Length
-
|
Length
-
|
|
Width
1,805 mm
|
Width
1,811 - 1,828 mm
|
|
Height
-
|
Height
-
|
|
Max trunk capacity
-
|
Max trunk capacity
-
|
|
Payload
367 - 469 kg
|
Payload
368 - 515 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
115 - 150 HP
|
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
7.4 - 9.8 s
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
8.9 - 12.3 s
|
|
Max Speed
-
|
Max Speed
-
|
|
Torque
170 - 290 Nm
|
Torque
200 - 250 Nm
|
|
Number of Cylinders
3
|
Number of Cylinders
3 - 4
|
|
Power kW
92 - 124 kW
|
Power kW
85 - 110 kW
|
|
Engine capacity
999 cm3
|
Engine capacity
999 - 1,498 cm3
|
General |
|
|---|---|
|
Model Year
2,025 - 2,026
|
Model Year
2,024 - 2,025
|
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
D, A
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
E, D
|
|
Brand
Ford
|
Brand
VW
|
Deutschland
France
Nederland
Great Britain
Sverige
Danmark
Suomi
Italia
Polska
España