Ford Kuga 2009 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 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: | 200 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Ford Kuga is more dynamic to drive. Ford Kuga engine produces 3 HP less power than Volvo XC60, but torque is 20 NM more than Volvo XC60. Despite less power, Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 8.0 | |
|
The Volvo XC60 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Kuga consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Kuga could require 285 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 630'000 km | 350'000 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 Ford Kuga engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.44 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 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 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1455 litres | |
|
Volvo XC60 has more luggage space. Ford Kuga has 85 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`130 | 2`500 | |
| 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 (€): | 6400 | 9000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |