Ford Puma Gen-E vs Suzuki e Vitara
Biggest differences: Charging 10–80% — Ford Puma Gen-E 26 min, Suzuki e Vitara 45 min · Boot — Ford Puma Gen-E 523 l, Suzuki e Vitara 306 l · DC charging — Ford Puma Gen-E 100 kW, Suzuki e Vitara 70 kW.
Ford Puma Gen-E
The Ford Puma Gen-E is an all-electric subcompact crossover with a range of 419 kilometers and acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h in 8 seconds.
Suzuki e Vitara
An electric SUV in the B segment, offering three different drive configurations and battery capacities.
Profile against the market: Ford Puma Gen-E vs Suzuki e Vitara
Ford Puma Gen-EElectric
Suzuki e Vitara61 kWh 2WD
Ford Puma Gen-E or Suzuki e Vitara — who wins where
Ford Puma Gen-E leads 7 to 3
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmSuzuki e Vitara +7 km
- Battery kWhSuzuki e Vitara +14.2 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmFord Puma Gen-E −2.1 kWh/100 km
- Power PSSuzuki e Vitara +6 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sFord Puma Gen-E −0.7 s
- Top speed km/hFord Puma Gen-E +10 km/h
- DC charging kWFord Puma Gen-E +30 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minFord Puma Gen-E −19 min
- Weight ↓ kgFord Puma Gen-E −347 kg
- Boot lFord Puma Gen-E +217 l
Technical data: Ford Puma Gen-E vs Suzuki e Vitara
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Ford Puma Gen-E Electric | Suzuki e Vitara 61 kWh 2WD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 419 km | 426 km | Suzuki +7 km |
| Battery | 46.8 kWh | 61 kWh | Suzuki +14.2 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 13 kWh/100 km | 15.1 kWh/100 km | Ford −2.1 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 100 kW | 70 kW | Ford +30 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 26 min | 45 min | Ford −19 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 11.3 km/min | 6.6 km/min | Ford +4.7 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 168 PS | 174 PS | Suzuki +6 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 8 s | 8.7 s | Ford −0.7 s |
| Top speed | 160 km/h | 150 km/h | Ford +10 km/h |
| Drivetrain | FWD | FWD | — |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 1488 kg | 1835 kg | Ford −347 kg |
| Boot | 523 l | 306 l | Ford +217 l |
| V2L (external power) | No | Yes | only Suzuki |
| Length | 4214 mm | 4275 mm | Suzuki +61 mm |
| Width | 1805 mm | 1800 mm | Ford +5 mm |
| Height | 1555 mm | 1635 mm | Suzuki +80 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2588 mm | 2700 mm | Suzuki +112 mm |
The better value in each row is bold and underlined in the colour of the car. Metrics marked ↓ — lower is better. Dimensions are shown without picking a winner.
Energy cost calculator
Ford Puma Gen-E
Suzuki e Vitara
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Ford Puma Gen-E
Suzuki e Vitara
Other comparisons in this class: Crossover / SUV, segment B
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Suzuki e Vitara — its 61 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Ford Puma Gen-E, with 46.8 kWh, does not offer it.
Which has the bigger boot?
The Ford Puma Gen-E takes more: 523 l against 306 l in the Suzuki e Vitara. The difference is 217 l.
Which charges faster?
The Ford Puma Gen-E accepts up to 100 kW DC, the Suzuki e Vitara up to 70 kW. Charging from 10 to 80% takes 26 and 45 min respectively.
Which is cheaper to run?
The Ford Puma Gen-E uses less electricity: 13 kWh/100 km against 15.1 kWh/100 km in the Suzuki e Vitara. Over 15000 km a year that is a difference of 315 kWh — the calculator on this page turns it into money.
Technical data comes from official manufacturer materials and we do our best to verify it, but a manufacturer can change a specification without notice and mistakes do happen. Confirm the figures with a dealer before you buy — we accept no liability for decisions made on the basis of this data. Full disclaimer
Range, consumption and weight are given for the base configuration: manufacturers homologate them as a band of values that depends on wheels and equipment (e.g. 533–592 km), and we take the lightest variant, on the smallest wheels — i.e. the most favourable. The same model on larger wheels will travel a shorter distance.