Renault Kadjar 2015 vs Ford Kuga 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Ford Kuga is a more dynamic driving. Renault Kadjar engine produces 20 HP less power than Ford Kuga, whereas torque is 35 NM less than Ford Kuga. Due to the lower power, Renault Kadjar reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Kadjar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Kadjar consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga, which means that by driving the Renault Kadjar over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Kadjar consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1070 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Kadjar gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Megane, Dacia Duster, Dacia Dokker | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Kadjar might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Renault Kadjar is smaller. Renault Kadjar is 8 cm shorter than the Ford Kuga, width is practically the same , while the height of Renault Kadjar is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 472 litres | 456 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1478 litres | 1568 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Renault Kadjar has 16 litres more trunk space than the Ford Kuga. The Ford Kuga may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Kuga (by 90 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Kadjar is 0.3 metres less than that of the Ford Kuga. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`853 | 2`100 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Ford Kuga has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Kadjar has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Ford Kuga, so Ford Kuga quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 600 | 11 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Kadjar has
|
Ford Kuga has
| |