Ford EcoSport 2012 vs Ford Kuga 2008

Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison

 
Ford EcoSport
2012 - 2017
Ford Kuga
2008 - 2013
Gearbox: Manual/AutomaticManual/Automatic
Engines: 1.0 - 2.02.0 - 2.5

Performance

Power: 90 - 140 HP136 - 200 HP
Torque: 140 - 215 NM320 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 11.5 - 14.1 seconds8.2 - 10.7 seconds
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison!

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 4.4 - 8.35.3 - 10.3
Ford EcoSport petrol engines consumes on average 3.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than Ford Kuga. On average, Ford EcoSport equipped with diesel engines consume 1.4 litres less 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: 4.24 m4.44 m
Width: 1.83 m1.84 m
Height: 1.66 m1.68 m
Ford EcoSport is smaller.
Ford EcoSport is 20 cm shorter than the Ford Kuga, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Ford EcoSport is 2 cm lower.
Trunk capacity: 333 litres410 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
1238 litresno data
Ford Kuga has more luggage space.
Ford EcoSport has 77 litres less trunk space than the Ford Kuga.
Turning diameter: 10.6 meters11.6 meters
The turning circle of the Ford EcoSport is 1 metres less than that of the Ford Kuga, which means Ford EcoSport can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces.
Gross weight (kg): ~ 1`732~ 2`130
Safety:
Quality:
average

above average
Average price (€): 10 2007200
Pros and Cons: Ford EcoSport has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • better manoeuvrability
Ford Kuga has
  • roomier boot
  • higher safety
  • fewer faults
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv