Ford Kuga 2016 vs Ford C-Max 2014
| 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: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
| Ford Kuga engine produces 10 HP more power than Ford C-Max, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite the higher power, Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 4.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Ford C-Max is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 0.4 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 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford C-Max. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1150 km in combined cycle | 1250 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford C-Max gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
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, if possible |
1603 litres | 1684 litres | |
| Ford Kuga has 24 litres more trunk space than the Ford C-Max. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford C-Max (by 81 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 2`230 kg | 2`050 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`716 kg | 1`519 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 514 kg | 531 kg | |
| 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 (€): | 11 400 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Ford C-Max has
| |