Ford Kuga 2013 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2013
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.6 - 2.0 | 2.2 - 3.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 - 182 HP | 163 - 249 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 - 340 NM | 230 - 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 - 11.2 seconds | 9.2 - 11.1 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 - 7.7 | 6.2 - 10.5 | |
|
Ford Kuga petrol engines consumes on average 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than Chevrolet Captiva. On average, Ford Kuga equipped with diesel engines consume 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. 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 | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.75 m | |
|
Ford Kuga is smaller. Ford Kuga is 14 cm shorter than the Chevrolet Captiva, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford Kuga is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 477 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1568 litres | 1598 litres | |
|
Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space. Ford Kuga has 21 litres less trunk space than the Chevrolet Captiva. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 30 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 12.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 1.3 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Ford Kuga can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`213 | ~ 2`430 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Average price (€): | 11 400 | 7600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |