Ford Kuga 2008 vs Nissan Qashqai 2010
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 - 2.5 | 1.5 - 2.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 - 200 HP | 103 - 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 156 - 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 - 10.7 seconds | 9.5 - 13 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 - 10.3 | 4.5 - 8.2 | |
|
Ford Kuga petrol engines consumes on average 2.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than Nissan Qashqai. On average, Ford Kuga equipped with diesel engines consume 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Qashqai. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.44 m | 4.33 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Ford Kuga is larger. Ford Kuga is 11 cm longer than the Nissan Qashqai, 6 cm wider, while the height of Ford Kuga is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1513 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 1 metres more than that of the Nissan Qashqai, which means Ford Kuga can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`130 | ~ 1`985 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 6400 | 7000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Nissan Qashqai has
| |