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 | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 12.7 seconds | |
| Ford C-Max engine produces 5 HP less power than Ford Kuga, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Ford Kuga. Despite less power, Ford C-Max reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.5 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Ford C-Max consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford C-Max could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford C-Max consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1220 km in combined cycle | 1360 km in combined cycle | |
| 1370 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 940 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Kuga gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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, if possible |
1684 litres | 1603 litres | |
| Ford C-Max has 24 litres less trunk space than the Ford Kuga. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford C-Max (by 81 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`915 kg | 2`100 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`390 kg | 1`591 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 525 kg | 509 kg | |
| 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 (€): | 6200 | 11 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford C-Max has
|
Ford Kuga has
| |