Compare Hyundai Grandeur 4 TG vs Ford Mondeo 2 Liftback vs Ford Focus 3 Sedan facelift
Variants
2.2 CRDi
2.4
2.7
3.3
3.8
1.8 110
1.8 125
1.8 130
2.0 145
2.0 145 AT
2.0D 115
2.0D 115 AT
2.0D 90
2.0D 130
2.0D 130 AT
2.2D 155
2.5 170
2.5 170 AT
3.0 204
1.0T 100hp
1.0T 100hp stop/start
1.0T 125hp
1.0T 125hp stop/start
1.5D 120hp
1.5D 95hp
1.5T 150hp
1.5T 150hp stop/start
1.5T 182hp
1.5T 182hp stop/start
1.6D 115hp
1.6D 115hp stop/start
1.6D 95hp
1.6D 95hp stop/start
1.6T 105hp
1.6T 125hp
1.6T 125hp AT
1.6T 85hp
2.0D 150hp AT
2.0D 150hp AT stop/start
2.0D 150hp stop/start
Capacity
Cargo Capacity
523 L / 18.5 cu-ft
500 L / 17.7 cu-ft ~ 1370 L / 48.4 cu-ft
372 L / 13.1 cu-ft
Coolant Capacity
8.8 L / 9.3 qt
Engine Oil Capacity
5.9 L / 6.2 qt
Fuel Capacity
75.0 L / 19.8 gal
Passengers
5
5
5
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Disc
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Disc
Power Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Suspension | Front
Double-wishbone
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Multi-link
Multi-link
Multi-link
Tire Size
205/55 R16
205/55 R16, 215/50 R17
Turning Circle
12.5 m / 41.0 ft
11.0 m / 36.1 ft
Construction
Body Style
4-door Sedan
5-door Liftback Sedan
4-door Sedan
Dimensions
Ground Clearance
162 mm / 6.4 in
Size | Height
1429 mm / 56.3 in
1484 mm / 58.4 in
Size | Length
4895 mm / 192.7 in
4731 mm / 186.3 in
4534 mm / 178.5 in
Size | Width
1812 mm / 71.3 in
1823 mm / 71.8 in
Track Width | Front
1580.0 mm / 62.2 in
1522.0 mm / 59.9 in
1544.0 mm / 60.8 in
Track Width | Rear
1565.0 mm / 61.6 in
1537.0 mm / 60.5 in
1559.0 mm / 61.4 in
Wheel Size
16 in
6.5J x 16, 7.0J x 17
Wheelbase
2780 mm / 109.4 in
2754 mm / 108.4 in
2648 mm / 104.3 in
Performance
CO2 Emission
245 g/km
Coefficient Of Drag
0.29
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
Transmission | Gears
5-speed
Transmission | Type
Automatic
Reviews
Neofiliac score
35%
29%
22%
Pros
- Good engine options
- Great double-wishbone + multi-link suspension setup
- Good 0.28 drag coefficient
- Lots of room inside
- Good value for money
- Easy to work on
- Down to very low 3.8L/100km fuel consumption (if we believe it)
Cons
- Uninspiring design borrowed from elsewhere
- MacPherson strut front suspensions
- Bad 0-100kph time
- No powerful engine options
- Only available with small engines
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
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.