Ford Kuga 2008 vs Volvo XC60 2009

 
Ford Kuga
2008 - 2013
Volvo XC60
2009 - 2013
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 2.0 Diesel2.4 Diesel

Performance

Power: 136 HP175 HP
Torque: 320 NM420 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 10.6 seconds9.8 seconds
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving.
Ford Kuga engine produces 39 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 100 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.36.0
Real fuel consumption: 7.4 l/100km7.7 l/100km
The Ford Kuga is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
By specification Ford Kuga consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that by driving the Ford Kuga over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel.
By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60.
Fuel tank capacity: 58 litres70 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 1090 km in combined cycle1160 km in combined cycle
1280 km on highway1400 km on highway
780 km with real consumption900 km with real consumption
Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank.

Drive type

Wheel drive type: Front wheel drive (FWD)4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive)

Volvo XC60 2008: The car is fitted with Haldex Generation IV proactive automatic all-wheel drive. Haldex processes data from the ABS control unit and the engine control unit and can increase the pressure on the multi-disc clutch for faster engagement when required. It has a 100% front to 0% rear torque split when not engaged with a maximum 50% to 50% torque split between axes.

Dimensions

Length: 4.44 m4.63 m
Width: 1.84 m1.89 m
Height: 1.68 m1.71 m
Ford Kuga is smaller.
Ford Kuga is 19 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Kuga is 3 cm lower.
Trunk capacity: 410 litres495 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
no data1455 litres
Volvo XC60 has more luggage space.
Ford Kuga has 85 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60.
Turning diameter: no data11.9 meters
Gross weight (kg): no data2`505
Safety:
Quality:
below average

above average
Volvo XC60 has fewer problems.
According to annual technical inspection data Ford Kuga has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better
Average price (€): 72009400
Rating in user reviews: 8.8/10 7.6/10
Pros and Cons: Ford Kuga has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • higher ratings in user reviews
  • lower price
Volvo XC60 has
  • more power
  • more dynamic
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • has 4x4 drive
  • roomier boot
  • fewer faults
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv