Ford C-Max 2014 vs Ford Kuga 2016
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.4 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Ford C-Max and Ford Kuga have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 10.6 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford C-Max consumes 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga, which means that by driving the Ford C-Max over 15,000 km in a year you can save 285 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford C-Max consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 680 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford C-Max gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 320'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Focus | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford C-Max might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Ford C-Max is smaller. Ford C-Max is 14 cm shorter than the Ford Kuga, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Ford C-Max is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 432 litres | 456 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1684 litres | no data | |
|
Ford Kuga has more luggage space. Ford C-Max has 24 litres less trunk space than the Ford Kuga. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`915 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford Kuga scores higher in safety tests. The Ford Kuga scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Ford C-Max has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Kuga has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Ford C-Max, so Ford C-Max quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 15 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford C-Max has
|
Ford Kuga has
| |