Chevrolet Captiva 2015 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: | 2.2 - 3.0 | 1.6 - 2.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 167 - 258 HP | 140 - 182 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 - 400 NM | 230 - 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 - 11 seconds | 9.7 - 11.2 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 - 9.5 | 5.9 - 7.7 | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva petrol engines consumes on average 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than Ford Kuga. On average, Chevrolet Captiva equipped with diesel engines consume 1.7 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: | 4.67 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is larger. Chevrolet Captiva is 15 cm longer than the Ford Kuga, width is practically the same , while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 477 litres | 456 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1577 litres | 1568 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 9 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 11 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`411 | ~ 2`213 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 11 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Ford Kuga has
| |