Ford Kuga 2008 vs Jeep Cherokee 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.8 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Ford Kuga) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Jeep Cherokee) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 177 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 460 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Ford Kuga is more dynamic to drive. Ford Kuga engine produces 23 HP more power than Jeep Cherokee, but torque is 140 NM less than Jeep Cherokee. Thanks to more power Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.5 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Cherokee, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Kuga could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 500 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Jeep Cherokee 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 630'000 km | 420'000 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 | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Jeep Wrangler, Dodge Nitro | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jeep Cherokee might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Jeep Cherokee engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.44 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.74 m | |
| Ford Kuga is 5 cm shorter than the Jeep Cherokee, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford Kuga is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 878 litres | |
|
Jeep Cherokee has more luggage space. Ford Kuga has 468 litres less trunk space than the Jeep Cherokee. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.8 metres more than that of the Jeep Cherokee, which means Ford Kuga can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`520 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6200 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Kuga has
|
Jeep Cherokee has
| |