Among the 12 B-SUV 2018–2022, the Puma EcoBoost 125 ranks 1st of 12 in Combined consumption (4.3 L/100, behind the Ford Puma EcoBoost 125), 1st of 10 in Tank range (977 km, behind the Ford Puma EcoBoost 125), 7th of 12 in 0–100 km/h (9.9 s, behind the Ford Puma ST 200).
II · GENERATION 2020 → · SMALL SUV
FordICE
Puma EcoBoost 125
125 hp, 9,9 s 0-100 : among the 12 B-SUV 2018–2022, the Puma EcoBoost 125 ranks 1st of 12 in Combined consumption, 1st of 10 in Tank range, 7th of 12 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
Power
125hp
190 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
9.9s
VMax 188 km/h
Cons.
4.3L
/100 km
Tank
42L
Technical identity card
Full specifications Ford Puma EcoBoost 125
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
| Power | 125 hp |
| Couple | 190 Nm |
| Gearbox | Double embrayage 7 rapports Automatique |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 4.3 L/100km |
| Tank | 42 L |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 9,9 s |
| VMax | 188 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Width | 1,805 mm |
| Height | 1,532 mm |
| Kerb weight | 1,228 kg |
| Cd | 0.32 |
Caralogy Methodology
Performance (0-100, top speed) simulated by the Caralogy physics engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves). Motorway consumption values estimated from the manufacturer WLTP cycle.
See full methodology →Manufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance
Among the 12 B-SUV, the Puma EcoBoost 125 ranks (best in segment) in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.
Caralogy Analysis
Tailored to this vehicle?
Caralogy Verdict
Suitable for
Good compromise for regular use without available charging infrastructure. 1st of 12 in Combined consumption (4.3 L/100), 1st of 10 in Tank range (977 km).
Alternatives to consider
If the priority is 0–100 km/h, the Ford Puma ST 200 (1st with 6.7 s) takes the lead.
Fuel consumption: 4.3 L/100 L/100 (1st of 12 in Combined consumption)
The Puma EcoBoost 125 consumes 4.3 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Ford Puma EcoBoost 125 (4.3 L/100).
Tank range: 977 km (1st of 10 in Tank range)
On a full tank, the Puma EcoBoost 125 covers 977 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 977 km.
Go beyond this analysis
Recalculate everything for your own profile with the three physics simulators that power this page.
Running cost for your profile
Adjust mileage, driving mix and charging type to estimate your annual energy budget.
Launch simulator →Long-distance trip
Simulate any motorway trip: time, charging stops, total cost.
Simulate a trip →Chronos & accélération
0-100, 0-200, courbe de vitesse, positionnement segment.
Voir la performance →Segment positioning
Where the Puma EcoBoost 125 stands against B-SUV
Comparison across 12 B-SUV marketed between 2018–2022.
Combined consumption1e / 12
4.3 L/100
Min 7.3 L/100 · Hyundai Kona 1.6 T-GDI 7DCT 198 PSMax 4.3 L/100 · Ford Puma EcoBoost 125
Tank range1e / 10
977 km
Min 652 km · MG MG ZS 1.5 VTi FWDMax 977 km · Ford Puma EcoBoost 125
0–100 km/h7e / 12
9,9 s
Min 12,0 s · MG MG ZS 1.5 VTi FWDMax 6,7 s · Ford Puma ST 200
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
HR-V120 hp · 0-100 11.0 s
2008 PureTech 130 EAT8131 hp · 0-100 9.9 s
Captur TCe 130 EDC131 hp · 0-100 9.7 s
2008 PureTech 110110 hp · 0-100 10.9 s
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
Compare
Popular duels involving the Puma EcoBoost 125
Frequently asked questions
Ford Puma EcoBoost 125: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
977 km on a full tank (4.3 L/100 on the combined cycle) - 1st of 10 in autonomie du segment.
Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.
Caralogy does not reproduce manufacturer figures: we recalculate every number through physics simulation, starting from SCx, mass and the power curve. This is why our figures at 130 km/h differ from WLTP. Full methodology on the dedicated page.