Ford Kuga 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 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 | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Ford Kuga is more dynamic to drive. Ford Kuga and Honda CR-V have the same engine power, but Ford Kuga torque is 50 NM more than Honda CR-V. Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Kuga is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 1.3 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 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 1070 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Kuga gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 420'000 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 Honda CR-V engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on 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. | |||
| Honda CR-V 2012 2.0 engine: This engine is sensitive to both fuel and oil quality. Using low-grade gasoline can quickly damage the catalytic converter and lead to premature failure of the oxygen sensors.
Many Honda owners are annoyed ... More about Honda CR-V 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.69 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Kuga is 5 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 2 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1568 litres | 1669 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Ford Kuga has 133 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 101 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.8 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Ford Kuga can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`100 | 2`100 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above 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 (€): | 11 400 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |