Ford Kuga 2016 vs Ford C-Max 2015
| Body: | Crossover / SUV | Minivan / MPV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 182 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
| Ford Kuga engine produces 32 HP less power than Ford C-Max, the torque is the same for both cars. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.6 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Kuga could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 560 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford C-Max 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 | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford Focus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford C-Max might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Ford Kuga is larger. Ford Kuga is 14 cm longer than the Ford C-Max, 1 cm wider, while the height of Ford Kuga is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 432 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1684 litres | |
|
Ford Kuga has more luggage capacity. Ford Kuga has 24 litres more trunk space than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford Kuga scores higher in safety tests, but Ford C-Max is better rated in child safety tests. The Ford Kuga scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Ford C-Max has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Kuga has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Ford C-Max, so Ford C-Max quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 800 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Ford C-Max has
| |