Ford Kuga 2016 vs Renault Kadjar 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.4 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
| Ford Kuga engine produces 10 HP more power than Renault Kadjar, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Renault Kadjar. Despite the higher power, Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 | no data | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
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 |
1603 litres | 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. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Kuga (by 125 litres). | |||
| 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): | 2`100 | 1`943 | |
| 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 (€): | 15 800 | 12 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Renault Kadjar has
| |