New Renault 4 vs new Ford Puma Gen-E

The contenders

NEW Renault 4 Techno

List price £28,995
Best price £28,995

Based on our reigning Car of the Year, the reborn Renault 4 promises an extra dose of practicality and undercuts most of its rivals on price

NEW Ford Puma Gen-E Select

List price £29,995
Best price £27,499

One of the UK’s best-selling cars gets a fully electric option for the first time. Its official range is relatively short, but we’d expect it to be practical and fun to drive

If we’d done this test a number of years ago, it would have looked very different. You see, both of these cars revive names of old models but, where one used to be a petrol-powered family car and the other a coupé, they’ve now evolved into electric SUVs.

The first of them – the Renault 4 (R4) – has more to prove than just trying to win this test. It follows the hugely successful Renault 5 (R5) hatchback, another new electric vehicle (EV) that has revived an old name and is so good that we named it our 2025 Car of the Year.

The fact that they share the same basic underpinnings bodes well for the R4, which promises greater practicality than the R5 for only a modestly higher price, while still undercutting most other rivals. 

One such rival is the Ford Puma Gen-E. Based on the best-selling petrol-powered small SUV that we’ve always rated highly, the first all-electric Puma has plenty of potential. Indeed, if the Puma Gen-E can match the regular model’s agile handling and practicality, it’ll be a force to be reckoned with. 

So, can the R4 match the incredible success of the R5, or has Ford managed to work enough magic with the Puma Gen-E to make it the one to go for?

Driving

Performance, ride, handling, refinement

Each of our contenders has an electric motor that drives the front wheels, but the Puma’s puts out more power (166bhp versus 148bhp). While the difference in their 0-62mph times isn’t huge (7.8sec for the Puma, 8.2sec for the R4), the eagerness with which the former gets off the line makes it feel like there’s a much bigger gap in performance.

During our testing in wet conditions, though, we found that to be a bit of a double-edged sword, because the Puma was far more likely to spin its wheels when pulling away from junctions than the comparatively sedate R4.

At low speeds, the R4’s ride is quite surface dependent. While there’s a slight fidgetiness on most roads, the suspension is supple enough to soak up small imperfections without much fuss. When the road becomes more broken or uneven, though, the R4’s relatively tall body moves around enough to sway your head from side to side, and the wheels thud into potholes.
By contrast, the tightly controlled Puma rounds off these poor road surfaces better and doesn’t crash as much through divots. 

Once you speed up, you’ll find neither car uncomfortable as a motorway cruiser. In fact, the R4’s ride improves to the point where it feels calmer than the Puma and smothers depressions more easily.

Mind you, the Puma’s firmer set-up helps to give it the edge when you find yourself on a country road. True, it may not
feel quite as agile as its lighter petrol-powered sibling, but it still handles keenly, leaning less than the R4 through corners and having more front-end grip.

The Puma’s steering feels a little on the light side when you first turn the wheel but quickly starts building weight and ends
up feeling more reassuring than the R4’s; this is always light, although the little weight build-up you do get is at least delivered in a consistent manner. 

Of course, blasting along a country road probably isn’t that high on your priority list in a car like this; we suspect you’ll be far more concerned about how far each will go between charges. Well, in our testing, the Puma was more efficient, managing an average of 3.8 miles per kilowatt hour (mi/kWh), compared with 3.4mi/kWh for the R4. 

Despite that, because the R4 has a larger battery (with a 52kWh usable capacity), its theoretical real-world range of 177 miles is still 14 miles farther than you’re likely to be able to cover in the Puma, with its 43kWh battery.

Both cars can regain some energy through regenerative braking under deceleration, and (unlike in some EVs) both feel quite natural when they do so. In the R4, you can vary the strength of the regen by using paddles behind the steering wheel; the highest level allows full one-pedal driving, with almost no need to use the regular brakes, especially around town. The Puma has an ‘L’ (for Low)button on the drive selector stalk that engages regen; it’s just a pity the stronger one-pedal mode is hidden in its infotainment system. 

On the rare occasions when you do need to use the R4’s regular brakes, they initially feel a bit grabby, requiring concentration to operate smoothly.The Puma’s are more progressive, grabbing only when you’re almost at a standstill. 

Regardless of what speed you’re doing, the R4 is the quieter companion, suffering only from a bit of suspension noise at low speeds, whereas the Puma lets in a lot of road noise.

Behind the wheel

Driving position, visibility, build quality

Given that the R4 is cheaper than not only the Puma but also most other rivals, you might expect its interior to show traces of corner cutting. That isn’t the case, though; the R4’s eclectic mixture of good-quality materials, especially in the mid-spec Techno trim we have here (and above), makes it a really nice place to be. It’s far more impressive than the Puma, which has a lot of cheap-feeling plastics on top of the dashboard and doors. 

Each offers a driving position that lines you up perfectly with the pedals and steering wheel, while getting comfortable isn’t difficult, because both offer plenty of manual height and fore and aft seat adjustment. 

It’s a shame that the R4 misses out on adjustable lumbar support unless you go for range-topping Iconic trim, especially when the Puma comes with four-way manually adjustable driver’s lumbar support as standard.

Neither car sits you as high up as the Kia EV3, but if you like an elevated driving position, the R4 will be your pick of this pair. In the Puma, you’re close enough to the ground that it feels more like a hatchback than an SUV from behind the wheel. 

Even so, forward visibility is similar in both, with each offering a good view out over the bonnet, but raked-back windscreen pillars can slightly impede your view to the sides at junctions. 

To the rear, you’ll see more out of the Puma, due to it having a notably bigger rear screen. What’s more, this combines with larger rear side windows and slimmer rear pillars to reduce the size of your over-the-shoulder blindspots compared with the R4.

Parking will still be easy enough in the R4, though, thanks to standard front, rear and side parking sensors and a rear-view camera. By contrast, only rear parking sensors and a rear-view camera are standard on the Puma; you’ll need to pay £950 for the Advanced Driver Assistance Pack if you want front parking sensors. That pack also adds a 360-degree camera, for even more assistance.

Infotainment systems

Renault 4

The R4’s 10.1in touchscreen may be smaller than the Puma’s equivalent, but it’s far better to use, largely because it runs on a Google-based operating system. Not only does the screen respond swiftly to inputs, but the menus are also laid out in a really simple way, and you get apps such as Google Maps as standard. It almost makes the wireless phone mirroring redundant. Both cars come with wireless phone charging pads.

Ford Puma Gen-E

The Puma’s crisp 12.0in touchscreen is easy to read on the move, while large icons can be hit with accuracy. The problem is that the screen is relatively slow to respond to inputs. Luckily, it comes with wireless phone mirroring for Android and Apple devices; this is much faster and helps you to get around that issue. While Select trim misses out on the B&O sound system of higher-spec Pumas, the standard stereo is still punchier than the R4’s.

Space and practicality

Front space, rear space, seating flexibility, boot

Even if you’re six feet tall, you won’t have trouble fitting into the front seats of either the Puma or the R4, with both offering plenty of head, leg and shoulder room.

Climb into the back seats,  however, and things aren’t quite as rosy. Both are quite tight for rear head room for anyone six feet tall or more – especially the R4, which also feels rather claustrophobic due to  its wrap-over roof, which comes down to about eye level at the top of the side windows.

Foot space also isn’t a strong point for the R4. You see, there isn’t much space between the front and rear seats or much space under the front seat for your feet to rest, meaning that they end up feeling a bit trapped. In fairness, the Puma also has limited space under the front seats, but because there’s a larger footwell between the front and rear seats, it’s less of an issue.

The amount of knee room on offer is fairly equal, with someone long in the leg having just enough space to prevent their knees from touching the front seat, but the raised floor in the Puma means you end up sitting with your knees quite high, which isn’t hugely comfortable compared with the more natural position in the R4.

In both of these cars, it’s possible to fit three adults across the rear bench, but their shoulders will be pressed together uncomfortably, and the middle passenger’s head will be hitting the rooflining in the R4, due to its raised centre seat.

Luggage space is particularly impressive in the Puma. Its boot is huge by class standards; the Gen-E’s is even bigger than the petrol version’s. Remove the height-adjustable boot floor to reveal the ‘Gigabox’ storage well below and you end up with 523 litres of boot space – enough to swallow nine carry-on suitcases. That’s three more than you’ll fit into the R4’s boot (and those of most rivals). Add to that a 43-litre ‘frunk’ under the bonnet and you have a whole lot of load space at your disposal. 

That’s not to say that the R4’s boot is without merit, though. Its practical, square shape, low load lip and wide, tall opening make it particularly easy to load or unload. There’s also a fairly deep storage compartment below the R4’s non-adjustable boot floor, giving you somewhere in which to stash charging cables and in part making up for the lack of a frunk.

Boot space

Renault 4

Boot capacity 420-1405 litres Suitcases 6

Ford Puma Gen-E

Boot capacity 523-1283 litres Suitcases 9

Buying and owning

Costs, equipment, reliability, safety and security

Although the Puma Gen-E’s list price is slightly higher than the R4’s, you’re more likely to be able to get a discount on it – in which case it’ll be slightly the cheaper of the two to buy outright.

The Puma will be marginally cheaper to run for private buyers, too. In large part, that’s due to its better efficiency (leading to lower electricity bills) and usefully lower insurance costs. But the R4 offsets this with stronger predicted resale values after three years.

Those buying on PCP finance might find the R4 more tempting. Put down a £5000 deposit on a three-year agreement with a limit of 9000 miles a year and you’ll pay £365 per month, whereas the Puma will set you back £394 (after an initial payment of £404).

If you’re planning to run either of these as a company car, there’s almost nothing to split them, with the R4 costing just a pound or two less per month in benefit-in-kind tax. 

When you’re out and about, both of these cars can accept a peak charging rate of 100kW, but the R4’s larger battery means that it takes a bit longer to be replenished from 10-80% (33 minutes versus 24) via a suitably powerful public rapid charger. It’s much the same story if you charge at home via a typical 7kW wallbox, with the Puma taking seven hours to go from flat to full and the R4 about eight and a half hours.

Despite its lower list price, the mid-range R4 Techno comes with more standard equipment than the Puma, giving you larger alloy wheels (18in versus 17in), adaptive cruise control, keyless entry, a heat pump (for more efficient warming of the interior in cold weather) and the additional parking aids we mentioned earlier. While the Puma gets normal cruise control, you’ll have to add the £950 Advanced Driver Assistance Pack and the £650 Comfort Pack to approach the R4’s level of kit, and even then you miss out on a heat pump.

The Puma Gen-E and R4 were too new to be included in the 2024 What Car? Reliability Survey, but Renault ranked ninth out of 31 in the brand league table, while Ford was 14th. Should anything go wrong, both come with the same unexceptional three-year/60,000-mile warranty, with their drive batteries being covered for eight years/100,000 miles. 

When they were tested by the safety experts at Euro NCAP, both of these cars scored four out of five stars. Look deeper into the scores, though, and it’s the R4 that comes out on top, offering slightly better protection to adults in the front and scoring full marks when it came to protecting all critical body parts for children in the back. 

Each car’s safety equipment list is long and includes automatic emergency braking that detects cars, cyclists and pedestrians, plus lane-keeping assistance and lane departure warning.

Our verdict

Given the R4’s tempting list price and lower monthly PCP payments, it really is a lesson in value for money, and that’s one of the main reasons why it wins this test. 

True, it’s not as much of a step up in practicality over the R5 as we might have hoped, with rear seat space still being tight. But if you can live with that, its longer real-world range than the Puma, extra standard equipment and more appealing interior make it a very tempting prospect. 

The Puma Gen-E is the one to go for if you’re after a small electric SUV that’s good to drive, though, or if boot space is of particular importance to you. In fact, the Puma’s load-carrying ability is probably its strongest point, and something that no other rival can match.

For all the latest reviews, advice and new car deals, sign up to the What Car? newsletter here

1st – Renault 4

For More appealing interior; longer real-world range; better equipped; more user-friendly controls; cheaper on PCP finance
Against Fidgety low-speed ride; tight in the rear seats; grabby brakes
Recommended options None

What Car? rating 4 stars out of 5

Renault 4 review >>

Renault 4 deals >>

2nd – Ford Puma Gen-E

For Sharper to drive; larger boot; extra underbonnet storage; smoother brakes
Against So-so real-world range; rear seats aren’t all that comfortable; interior feels cheap in places; noisier
Recommended options None

What Car? rating 3 stars out of 5

Ford Puma Gen-E review >>

Ford Puma Gen-E deals >>

Specifications: Renault 4 Techno

Engine Electric motor
Peak power 148bhp
Peak torque 181lb ft
Gearbox 1-spd automatic
0-60mph 8.2sec
30-70mph in kickdown 7.3sec
Top speed 93mph
Braking 30-0mph 10.5m
Braking 70-0mph 58.6m
Noise at 30mph 57.6dB
Noise at 70mph 64.7dB
Kerb weight 1462kg
Tyre size (standard) 195/60 R18
Battery capacity (usable) 52kWh
Charging time 7kW home wallbox (0-100%) 8hr 30min
Charging time rapid charger, peak rate (10-80%) 33min
Maximum charging rate 100kW
Real-world range (est) 177 miles
Official range 245 miles
Efficiency on test 3.4mi/kWh
CO2 emission 0g/km

Specifications: Ford Puma Gen-E Select

Engine Electric motor
Peak power 166bhp
Peak torque 214lb ft
Gearbox 1-spd automatic
0-60mph 7.8sec
30-70mph in kickdown 7.3sec
Top speed 99mph
Braking 30-0mph 10.8m
Braking 70-0mph 58.2m
Noise at 30mph 58.7dB
Noise at 70mph 65.9dB
Kerb weight 1563kg
Tyre size (standard) 215/55 R17
Battery capacity (usable) 43kWh
Charging time 7kW home wallbox (0-100%) 7hr
Charging time rapid charger, peak rate (10-80%) 24min
Maximum charging rate 100kW
Real-world range (est) 163 miles
Official range 234 miles
Efficiency on test 3.8mi/kWh
CO2 emission 0g/km

Weather conditions 17deg C, wet

Car pictured

Renault 4 Techno with Cumulus Blue metallic paint and Diamond Black roof (£1150)

Ford Puma Gen-E Select with Agate Black metallic paint (£800) and Comfort Pack (£650)

Read more: Best and worst electric SUVs >>