Chevrolet Captiva 2006 vs Ford Kuga 2008
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.0 - 3.2 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 127 - 230 HP | 136 - 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 - 320 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 - 12.2 seconds | 8.2 - 10.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 - 11.5 | 5.3 - 10.3 | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva petrol engines consumes on average 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than Ford Kuga. On average, Chevrolet Captiva equipped with diesel engines consume 1.8 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: | 4.64 m | 4.44 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva is larger. Chevrolet Captiva is 20 cm longer than the Ford Kuga, 1 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Captiva is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | no data | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage capacity. Chevrolet Captiva has 55 litres more trunk space than the Ford Kuga. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.1 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Captiva is 0.5 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`454 | ~ 2`130 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Captiva has
|
Ford Kuga has
| |