Ford Kuga 2016 vs Audi Q3 2019
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
| Ford Kuga and Audi Q3 have the same engine power, but Ford Kuga torque is 10 NM less than Audi Q3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.6 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Audi Q3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Kuga could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 3.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 950 km in combined cycle | |
| 560 km with real consumption | 850 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Skoda Superb, Audi A1, Skoda Scala | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Audi Q3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Audi Q3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.50 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.56 m | |
| Ford Kuga is 2 cm longer than the Audi Q3, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford Kuga is 13 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1400 litres | |
|
Audi Q3 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Ford Kuga has 74 litres less trunk space than the Audi Q3. This could mean that the Ford Kuga uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.7 metres less than that of the Audi Q3, which means Ford Kuga can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`045 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Audi Q3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Kuga has serious deffects in 160 percent more cases than Audi Q3, so Audi Q3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 000 | 33 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Audi Q3 has
| |