Ford Kuga 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Ford Kuga) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Mazda CX-5) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
| Ford Kuga engine produces 13 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 130 NM more than Mazda CX-5. Despite the higher power, Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 6.7 | |
|
The Ford Kuga is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Kuga consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that by driving the Ford Kuga over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 1170 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| Ford Kuga 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) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
| Mazda CX-5 2012 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda CX-5 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.67 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Kuga is 2 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford Kuga is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1568 litres | 1620 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`250 kg | 2`045 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`692 kg | 1`488 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 558 kg | 557 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda CX-5 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Kuga, so Mazda CX-5 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 9600 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |