Ford Kuga 2016 vs Ford Kuga 2013
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.5 - 2.5 | 1.6 - 2.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 - 242 HP | 140 - 182 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 - 400 NM | 230 - 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 - 12.7 seconds | 9.7 - 11.2 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 - 8.7 | 5.9 - 7.7 | |
|
Ford Kuga 2016 petrol engines consumes on average 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than Ford Kuga 2013. On average, Ford Kuga 2016 equipped with diesel engines consume 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga 2013. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.69 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Kuga 2016 and Ford Kuga 2013 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 456 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1653 litres | 1568 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga 2016 is 0.1 metres more than that of the Ford Kuga 2013. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`207 | ~ 2`213 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 16 000 | 12 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Ford Kuga has
| |