Ford Kuga 2016 vs Kia Sportage 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 182 HP | 177 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Kia Sportage is a more dynamic driving. Ford Kuga engine produces 5 HP more power than Kia Sportage, but torque is 25 NM less than Kia Sportage. Despite the higher power, Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.7 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The Kia Sportage 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 Kia Sportage, 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 Kia Sportage. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 250'000 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 Ford Kuga engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Kia Ceed, Hyundai Sonata, Hyundai Tucson, Hyundai Elantra | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Sportage might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.66 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Kuga is 4 cm longer than the Kia Sportage, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Kuga is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 466 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1603 litres | no data | |
| Despite its longer length, Ford Kuga has 10 litres less trunk space than the Kia Sportage. 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 | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.5 metres more than that of the Kia Sportage, which means Ford Kuga can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`200 | 2`190 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford Kuga scores higher in safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Kia Sportage has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Kuga, so Kia Sportage quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 000 | 14 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Kia Sportage has
| |