Ford Kuga 2016 vs Ford Kuga 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 370 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Ford Kuga 2013 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Kuga 2016 engine produces 13 HP less power than Ford Kuga 2013, but torque is 30 NM more than Ford Kuga 2013. Due to the lower power, Ford Kuga 2016 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 5.9 | |
|
The Ford Kuga 2016 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Kuga 2016 consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga 2013, which means that by driving the Ford Kuga 2016 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1270 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1390 km on highway | 1170 km on highway | ||
| Ford Kuga 2016 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.70 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Kuga 2016 and Ford Kuga 2013 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 456 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1603 litres | 1568 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga 2016 is 0.1 metres more than that of the Ford Kuga 2013. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`250 | 2`250 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 16 000 | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Ford Kuga has
| |