Ford Kuga 2013 vs Chevrolet Captiva 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| Ford Kuga engine produces 21 HP less power than Chevrolet Captiva, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Chevrolet Captiva. Despite less power, Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 10.9 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Kuga is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva, which means that by driving the Ford Kuga over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 2.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Captiva. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Kuga gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
|
Ford Kuga is smaller. Ford Kuga is 15 cm shorter than the Chevrolet Captiva, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford Kuga is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 456 litres | 97 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 97 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 456 litres | 477 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1568 litres | 1577 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Chevrolet Captiva has more luggage space (by 21 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Captiva (by 9 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 12.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 1.3 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Captiva, which means Ford Kuga can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`250 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Ford Kuga has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Captiva has serious deffects in 110 percent more cases than Ford Kuga, so Ford Kuga quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 400 | 7600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Chevrolet Captiva has
| |