Ford Kuga 2016 vs Honda CR-V 2017
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.5 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 | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 243 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Ford Kuga engine produces 40 HP less power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 3 NM less than Honda CR-V. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.6 l/100km | 9.1 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Ford Kuga over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Kuga consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 53 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 560 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda CR-V might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.68 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Kuga is 6 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 2 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 497 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1110 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Ford Kuga has 41 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.3 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Honda CR-V has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Kuga, so Honda CR-V quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 600 | 16 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |