Ford Kuga 2013 vs Nissan Qashqai 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 182 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 196 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 10.1 seconds | |
|
Ford Kuga is more dynamic to drive. Ford Kuga engine produces 41 HP more power than Nissan Qashqai, whereas torque is 44 NM more than Nissan Qashqai. Thanks to more power Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.5 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Qashqai is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Qashqai, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Kuga could require 120 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 Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 940 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Qashqai 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Focus | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Serena | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Qashqai might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.59 m | |
|
Ford Kuga is larger. Ford Kuga is 15 cm longer than the Nissan Qashqai, 4 cm wider, while the height of Ford Kuga is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1568 litres | no data | |
|
Ford Kuga has more luggage capacity. Ford Kuga has 26 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.3 metres more than that of the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`890 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Ford Kuga has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Qashqai has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Ford Kuga, so Ford Kuga quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 800 | 9600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Nissan Qashqai has
| |