Ford Kuga 2016 vs Mazda CX-5 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 208 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.4 seconds | |
| Ford Kuga and Mazda CX-5 have the same engine power, but Ford Kuga torque is 32 NM more than Mazda CX-5. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 6.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Kuga consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Kuga could require 195 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda CX-5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-5 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. | |||
| Mazda CX-5 2015 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda CX-5 2015 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.64 m | |
|
Ford Kuga is smaller, but higher. Ford Kuga is 3 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford Kuga is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 503 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Ford Kuga has 47 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.6 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Ford Kuga can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`050 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Ford Kuga has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda CX-5, so Ford Kuga quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 800 | 13 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |