Renault Kadjar 2015 vs Ford Kuga 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.5 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: | 10.7 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Renault Kadjar engine produces 20 HP less power than Ford Kuga, whereas torque is 35 NM less than Ford Kuga. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 10.6 l/100km | |
|
The Renault Kadjar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Kadjar consumes 2.5 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 375 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Kadjar consumes 2.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1090 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Kadjar gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 5 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 | 1.69 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 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 472 litres | 456 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1478 litres | no data | |
| 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. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Kadjar is 0.4 metres less than that of the Ford Kuga, which means Renault Kadjar can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`903 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford Kuga is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Renault Kadjar has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Kuga has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than Renault Kadjar, so Renault Kadjar quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 000 | 13 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Kadjar has
|
Ford Kuga has
| |