Toyota GR Supra vs Ford Puma

In-depth comparison in South Africa covering price, performance, fuel efficiency, safety, practicality and long-term ownership costs.

Toyota GR Supra in South Africa

Toyota GR Supra

3.0T Manual Petrol Manual
ZAR 1,561,600 ex-showroom
⚡ 285 kW (382 hp)
🔧 500 Nm
⛽ 11.2 km/l
VS
Ford Puma in South Africa

Ford Puma

1.0T EcoBoost ST-Line Automatic Petrol Automatic
ZAR 459,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 92 kW (123 hp)
🔧 170 Nm
⛽ 16.4 km/l
+

Add a 3rd car to compare

Quick Winners

Performance GR Supra
Mileage Puma
🔑 Ownership Tie

Overall Comparison Score

🏆 Winner
#1

GR Supra

67
/ 100
+6
pts
#2

Puma

61
/ 100

Very close match. Final decision depends on buyer preference.

Executive Summary

Both GR Supra and Puma are extremely closely matched, making the final choice dependent on buyer preference.

Key Differences At A Glance

Performance GR Supra +12 pts
Efficiency Puma +2 pts
Safety Puma +2 pts
Practicality Puma +2 pts
Ownership Equal

Category Score Breakdown

🏆 Overall Winner

GR Supra

Performance 20/20
Efficiency 7/20
Safety 18/20
Practicality 10/20
Ownership 12/20

Puma

Performance 8/20
Efficiency 9/20
Safety 20/20
Practicality 12/20
Ownership 12/20

Pros & Cons

🏆 Overall Winner

GR Supra

Pros
  • More powerful engine output
Cons
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Less comprehensive safety features
  • Less practical in daily usage
Best For: Highway Driving

Puma

Pros
  • Better fuel efficiency
  • Stronger safety package
  • More practical for daily use
Cons
  • Less powerful engine setup
Best For: Fuel Efficiency Family Usage

Who Should Buy Which?

GR Supra

  • Drivers who prioritise strong highway performance and overtaking power

Puma

  • Buyers looking for better fuel efficiency
  • Families prioritising stronger safety equipment
  • Large families needing more practicality and usability

Full Specification Comparison

Specification GR Supra Puma
Ground Clearance 115 170
Wheelbase 2470 2594
Length 4379 4186
Width 1854 1805
Height 1294 1531
Kerb Weight 1570 1325
Gross Vehicle Weight 1970 1775
Seating Capacity 2 5
Boot Space 408 456
Towing Capacity Not Rated 1200
Front Track Width 1617 1541
Rear Track Width 1607 1534
Turning Radius 6.1 5.4
Specification GR Supra Puma
Engine 3.0L Turbocharged Inline-6 Petrol 1.0L EcoBoost Mild Hybrid
Engine Type B58 Inline-6 Turbo Inline 3 Cylinder Turbo Mild Hybrid
Displacement 2998 999
Cylinders 6 3
Valves per Cylinder 4 4
Power 285 92
Power @ RPM 5000 rpm 6000 rpm
Torque 500 170
Torque @ RPM 1800 rpm 2000-4500 rpm
Fuel System Direct Injection Direct Injection
Turbocharger Turbocharged Single Turbo
Top Speed 250 185
0-100 km/h 4.3 10.5
Compression Ratio 12.0:1 10.5:1
Engine Position Front Longitudinal Front Transverse

Final Verdict

🏆 Toyota GR Supra wins with 67 pts vs 61 pts for Puma

In structured scoring, GR Supra emerges as the stronger overall package. However, Puma may appeal to buyers prioritising different factors. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

People Also Compare

Popular comparisons among buyers considering similar options.

Frequently Asked Questions

Based on structured category scoring, GR Supra performs better overall in South Africa. However, final choice depends on driving priorities.

GR Supra scores 7 while Puma scores 9 in efficiency. Real-world mileage may vary based on driving conditions.

In safety scoring, GR Supra scores 18 and Puma scores 20. Both offer competitive safety packages in this segment.

GR Supra scores 12 versus Puma scoring 12. Warranty coverage and ownership value influence this result.

Practicality scoring gives GR Supra 10 and Puma 12, reflecting cabin space and usability.

Performance category shows GR Supra scoring 20 compared to Puma scoring 8, indicating stronger overtaking capability.

While resale depends on market demand, ownership and brand positioning suggest GR Supra may hold stronger long-term value.

Off-road suitability depends on drivetrain and ground clearance. Refer to the full specification comparison for detailed technical differences.

Efficiency and ownership categories influence running costs. GR Supra performs slightly stronger overall in structured scoring.

Value depends on feature set, performance and ownership coverage. Structured comparison gives GR Supra the overall advantage.

Detailed Comparison Analysis

The comparison between GR Supra and Puma in South Africa evaluates performance, efficiency, safety, practicality and long-term ownership value.

Performance: GR Supra scores 20 vs 8.

Efficiency: GR Supra scores 7 vs 9.

Safety: GR Supra scores 18 vs 20.

Practicality: GR Supra scores 10 vs 12.

Ownership: GR Supra scores 12 vs 12.

Final structured scoring gives GR Supra the advantage in this comparison.