Compare Chevrolet Evanda vs Ford Mondeo 3 vs Ford Taurus 4
Variants
2.0
2.0 AT
1.6
1.8D
2.0
2.0D 130hp
2.0D 140hp
2.2D
2.3
2.5T
3.0 155hp
3.0 200hp
3.0 201hp
Capacity
Cargo Capacity
435 L / 15.4 cu-ft
550 L / 19.4 cu-ft
481 L / 17.0 cu-ft
Fuel Capacity
65.0 L / 17.2 gal
70.0 L / 18.5 gal
68.0 L / 18.0 gal
Passengers
5
5
5
Payload
490 kg / 1080 lbs
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Disc
Power Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Suspension | Front
Spring Strut
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Helical spring
Helical spring
Multi-link
Tire Size
205/65 R16
205/55 R16
215/60 R16
Turning Circle
11.1 m / 36.4 ft
12.1 m / 39.7 ft
Construction
Body Style
4-door Sedan
4-door Sedan
4-door Sedan
Dimensions
Size | Height
1440 mm / 56.7 in
1500 mm / 59.1 in
1425 mm / 56.1 in
Size | Length
4770 mm / 187.8 in
4844 mm / 190.7 in
5019 mm / 197.6 in
Size | Width
1815 mm / 71.5 in
1886 mm / 74.3 in
1854 mm / 73.0 in
Track Width | Front
1550.0 mm / 61.0 in
1522.0 mm / 59.9 in
Track Width | Rear
1535.0 mm / 60.4 in
1537.0 mm / 60.5 in
1577.0 mm / 62.1 in
Weight
1422.0 kg / 3135.0 lbs
Wheel Size
16 in
16 in
Wheelbase
2700 mm / 106.3 in
2850 mm / 112.2 in
2756 mm / 108.5 in
Performance
Coefficient Of Drag
0.3
Powertrain
Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Emission Standard
Euro 4
Engine | Bore
86.0 mm / 3.4 in
89.0 mm / 3.5 in
Engine | Compression Ratio
9.6:1
Engine | Displacement
2.0 L / 121.9 cu-in / 1998.0 cc
Engine | Power
131.0 hp / 97.7 kW @ 5400 rpm
Engine | Specific Output
65.6 hp/L / 1.1 hp/cu-in
Engine | Stroke
86.0 mm / 3.4 in
Engine | Torque
181 Nm / 133.5 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm
Engine | Type
Naturally-aspirated multi-port injected petrol inline-4 DOHC engine with 4 values per cylinder
Transmission | Gears
4-speed
Transmission | Type
Automatic
Production
Availability
2004 ~ 2006
Reviews
Neofiliac score
11%
22%
13%
Pros
- Interesting I5 engine option
- Clean exterior styling
Cons
- Horrible 0-100kph time
- Miserably low engine output
- Only available with small engines
- Limited by MacPherson strut front suspensions
- No powerful engine options
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- Arguably worse styling than Gen2
- No powerful engine options
- Lethargic transmission
- Basic suspension setup
Remove
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.