Ford Kuga 2016 vs Renault Kadjar 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.2 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 | 130 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 205 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
| Ford Kuga engine produces 20 HP more power than Renault Kadjar, whereas torque is 35 NM more than Renault Kadjar. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.6 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Kadjar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Kadjar, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Kuga could require 375 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 2.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Renault Kadjar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 560 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Kadjar gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Megane, Dacia Duster, Dacia Dokker | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Kadjar might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.45 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Ford Kuga is larger. Ford Kuga is 8 cm longer than the Renault Kadjar, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford Kuga is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 472 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1478 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Ford Kuga has 16 litres less trunk space than the Renault Kadjar. 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 | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.4 metres more than that of the Renault Kadjar, which means Ford Kuga can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`903 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford Kuga is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Renault Kadjar has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Kuga has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than Renault Kadjar, so Renault Kadjar quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 800 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Renault Kadjar has
| |