Chevrolet Captiva 2013 vs Ford Kuga 2013

Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison

 
Chevrolet Captiva
2013 - 2014
Ford Kuga
2013 - 2016
Gearbox: Manual/AutomaticManual/Automatic
Engines: 2.2 - 3.01.6 - 2.0

Performance

Power: 163 - 249 HP140 - 182 HP
Torque: 230 - 400 NM230 - 340 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 9.2 - 11.1 seconds9.7 - 11.2 seconds
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison!

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 6.2 - 10.55.9 - 7.7
Chevrolet Captiva petrol engines consumes on average 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than Ford Kuga. On average, Chevrolet Captiva equipped with diesel engines consume 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga.
This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version!

Dimensions

Length: 4.66 m4.52 m
Width: 1.85 m1.84 m
Height: 1.75 m1.69 m
Chevrolet Captiva is larger.
Chevrolet Captiva is 14 cm longer than the Ford Kuga, width is practically the same , while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 6 cm higher.
Trunk capacity: 477 litres456 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
1598 litres1568 litres
Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage capacity.
Chevrolet Captiva has 21 litres more trunk space than the Ford Kuga. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 30 litres).
Turning diameter: 12.3 meters11 meters
The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 1.3 metres more than that of the Ford Kuga, which means Chevrolet Captiva can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces.
Gross weight (kg): ~ 2`430~ 2`213
Safety: no datano data
Quality:
low

average
Average price (€): 840012 200
Pros and Cons: Chevrolet Captiva has
  • lower price
Ford Kuga has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • better manoeuvrability
  • fewer faults
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv