Ford Kuga 2008 vs Volvo XC60 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 3.0 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 | 285 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 7.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Kuga engine produces 85 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Ford Kuga reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 | 11.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.5 l/100km | 12.1 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Kuga is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Kuga consumes 1.6 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 240 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Kuga consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 500 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
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 | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Volvo S80 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC60 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo XC60 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 | 4.63 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 | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Kuga is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`440 | |
| 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
| |