Ford Kuga 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Honda CR-V is a more dynamic driving. Ford Kuga engine produces 10 HP less power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 120 NM less than Honda CR-V. Due to the lower power, Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Kuga consumes 0.6 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 90 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Kuga consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Kuga gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 2012: Vehicle has automatic four-wheel drive system that sends torque to front wheels under normal conditions. Electronically controlled multi-plate clutch transfers torque to rear axle when wheel slip is detected. The all-wheel drive system constantly interacts with the VSA dynamic stabilization system and electric power steering to provide full vehicle control, good traction and maneuverability in all road conditions. | |||
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 | no data | |
| 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
| |