Ford Kuga 2008 vs Volvo XC60 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 - 2.5 | 2.0 - 3.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 - 200 HP | 163 - 285 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 300 - 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 - 10.7 seconds | 7.5 - 10.9 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 - 10.3 | 6.0 - 11.9 | |
|
Ford Kuga petrol engines consumes on average 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than Volvo XC60. On average, Ford Kuga equipped with diesel engines consume 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. 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 | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Ford Kuga is smaller. Ford Kuga is 19 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Kuga is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1455 litres | |
|
Volvo XC60 has more luggage space. Ford Kuga has 85 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.5 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Ford Kuga can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`130 | ~ 2`499 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 9400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |