Ford Puma Gen-E vs Ford Puma vs Honda CR-V vs Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Ford Puma Gen-E
£29,995
Ford Puma
£37,500 – £38,000
Honda CR-V
$37,899 – $38,650
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
$53,599 – $54,800
AI Comparison Summary
Comparing Ford Puma Gen-E vs Ford Puma vs Honda CR-V vs Chevrolet Silverado 1500. Ford Puma Gen-E offers the strongest value on price. Honda CR-V leads on expert rating.
Category Winners
Overall Winner
Honda CR-V
Best Value
Ford Puma Gen-E
Fuel Economy
Honda CR-V
Performance
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Visual Comparison
Category Radar
Price & Reviews
Model Year
Expert Rating
Ford Puma Gen-E
£29,995
Rating: 4.5/10
Ford Puma
£37,500 – £38,000
Rating: 4.5/10
Honda CR-V
$37,899 – $38,650
Rating: 4.7/10
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
$53,599 – $54,800
Rating: 4.5/10
| Specification |
Ford Puma Gen-E |
Ford Puma |
Honda CR-V |
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand | Ford | Ford | Honda | Chevrolet |
| Model | Puma Gen-E | Puma | CR-V | Silverado 1500 |
| Year | 2026 | 2026 | 2026 | 2026 |
| Type | Ev | Ev | Suv | — |
| Body Style | Compact SUV | Crossover | Compact Crossover SUV | Full-Size Pickup Truck |
| Current Price | £29,995 | £37,500 – £38,000 | $37,899 – $38,650 | $53,599 – $54,800 |
| MSRP | £29,995 | £38,000 | $38,650 | $54,800 |
| Dealer Price | £28,995 | — | $37,299 | $52,499 |
| Engine | Single Electric Motor FWD | Electric Motor | 1.5L Turbo Inline-4 | 5.3L EcoTec3 V8 |
| Horsepower | 168 hp (124 kW) | 168 hp | 190 hp | 355 hp |
| Torque | 290 Nm (214 lb-ft) | 290 Nm | 179 lb-ft | 383 lb-ft |
| 0–60 mph | 8.0 sec (0-62 mph) | 8.0 sec (0-100 km/h) | Approx. 8.0 sec (0-60 mph) | Approx. 6.1 sec (0-60 mph) |
| Top Speed | 99 mph (160 km/h) | 160 km/h | Approx. 116 mph | Approx. 112 mph |
| Fuel Type | Electric | Electric | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Mileage / MPG | 5.4 miles per kWh | — | 29 MPG combined | 18 MPG combined (EPA est., configuration dependent) |
| Range (EV) | 233 miles WLTP | 376 km (WLTP) | N/A | N/A |
| Emissions | 0 g/km | — | Meets applicable U.S. federal and state standards | Meets applicable U.S. federal and state standards |
| Battery | 43 kWh usable | — | N/A | N/A |
| Charging | 100 kW DC (10-80% in 23 min) | — | N/A | N/A |
| Expert Rating | 4.5/10 | 4.5/10 | 4.7/10 | 4.5/10 |
| Community Reviews | 0 | 0 | 1340 | 870 |
| Performance Score | 8.2 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.8 |
| Comfort Score | 8.5 | 8.5 | 9.2 | 8.6 |
| Safety Score | 9.0 | 8.5 | 9.4 | 8.9 |
| Fuel Economy Score | 9.4 | — | 9.0 | 7.9 |
| Technology Score | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.8 | 9.0 |
| Value Score | 8.7 | — | 9.0 | 8.7 |
| Pros | Exceptional city efficiency and energy economy; Engaging, responsive steering and handling; Clever storage including the... | Spacious and practical cabin design; Strong standard and available safety tech; Comfortable ride and quiet interior; Com... | Strong maximum towing capability; Broad engine and trim lineup; Useful trailer and bed technologies; Large infotainment... | |
| Cons | Smaller battery capacity limits long highway range; Rear legroom can feel snug for taller passengers; Optional advanced... | Acceleration is adequate rather than sporty; Higher trims increase total cost quickly; No dedicated performance-oriented... | Ride quality can feel firm on rough surfaces; Fuel economy is average for the segment; Some advanced features locked to... | |
