Ford Kuga 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| 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 | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 12.8 seconds | |
|
Ford Kuga is more dynamic to drive. Ford Kuga engine produces 32 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 7.7 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 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 also on Ford Focus | 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): | no data | 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
| |