Ford Puma Gen-E vs Volkswagen ID. Cross
Volkswagen ID. Cross leads 6 to 3
Biggest differences: Power — Ford Puma Gen-E 168 PS, Volkswagen ID. Cross 211 PS · 0–100 km/h — Ford Puma Gen-E 8 s, Volkswagen ID. Cross 7.1 s · Battery — Ford Puma Gen-E 46.8 kWh, Volkswagen ID. Cross 52 kWh.
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.
Volkswagen ID. Cross
Volkswagen ID. Cross is an urban B-segment SUV, in model year 2026 in three variants: WLTP range from 316 to 427 km, power from 116 to 211 hp.
Profile against the market: Ford Puma Gen-E vs Volkswagen ID. Cross
Ford Puma Gen-EElectric
Volkswagen ID. Cross52 kWh 155 kW
Ford Puma Gen-E or Volkswagen ID. Cross — who wins where
Volkswagen ID. Cross leads 6 to 3
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmVolkswagen ID. Cross +8 km
- Battery kWhVolkswagen ID. Cross +5.2 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmFord Puma Gen-E −1.3 kWh/100 km
- Power PSVolkswagen ID. Cross +43 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sVolkswagen ID. Cross −0.9 s
- Top speed km/hNo difference
- DC charging kWVolkswagen ID. Cross +5 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minVolkswagen ID. Cross −2 min
- Weight ↓ kgFord Puma Gen-E −60 kg
- Boot lFord Puma Gen-E +48 l
Technical data: Ford Puma Gen-E vs Volkswagen ID. Cross
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Ford Puma Gen-E Electric | Volkswagen ID. Cross 52 kWh 155 kW | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 419 km | 427 km | Volkswagen +8 km |
| Battery | 46.8 kWh | 52 kWh | Volkswagen +5.2 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 13 kWh/100 km | 14.3 kWh/100 km | Ford −1.3 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 100 kW | 105 kW | Volkswagen +5 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 26 min | 24 min | Volkswagen −2 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 11.3 km/min | 12.5 km/min | Volkswagen +1.2 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 168 PS | 211 PS | Volkswagen +43 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 8 s | 7.1 s | Volkswagen −0.9 s |
| Top speed | 160 km/h | 160 km/h | No difference |
| Drivetrain | FWD | FWD | — |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 1488 kg | 1548 kg | Ford −60 kg |
| Boot | 523 l | 475 l | Ford +48 l |
| V2L (external power) | No | Yes | only Volkswagen |
| Length | 4214 mm | 4153 mm | Ford +61 mm |
| Width | 1805 mm | 1794 mm | Ford +11 mm |
| Height | 1555 mm | 1581 mm | Volkswagen +26 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2588 mm | 2601 mm | Volkswagen +13 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
Volkswagen ID. Cross
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Ford Puma Gen-E
Volkswagen ID. Cross
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 Volkswagen ID. Cross — its 52 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Ford Puma Gen-E, with 46.8 kWh, does not offer it.
Which charges faster?
The Ford Puma Gen-E accepts up to 100 kW DC, the Volkswagen ID. Cross up to 105 kW. Charging from 10 to 80% takes 26 and 24 min respectively.
Which is cheaper to run?
The Ford Puma Gen-E uses less electricity: 13 kWh/100 km against 14.3 kWh/100 km in the Volkswagen ID. Cross. Over 15000 km a year that is a difference of 195 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.