Ford Kuga 2008 vs Honda CR-V 2007
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.4 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 | 166 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Ford Kuga is more dynamic to drive. Ford Kuga engine produces 34 HP more power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 100 NM more than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 | 9.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.5 l/100km | 10.6 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Kuga could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 500 km with real consumption | 540 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda CR-V gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 630'000 km | 480'000 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 | 15 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda CR-V might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.44 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.68 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Kuga is 8 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 2 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 556 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 955 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Ford Kuga has 146 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.2 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`160 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Kuga has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 5800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |