Skoda Kodiaq 2021 vs Ford Kuga 2016

 
Skoda Kodiaq
2021 - 2023
Ford Kuga
2016 - 2019
Gearbox: ManualAutomatic
Engine: 1.5 Petrol1.5 Petrol

Performance

Power: 150 HP150 HP
Torque: 250 NM240 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 9.8 secondsn/a seconds
Skoda Kodiaq and Ford Kuga have the same engine power, but Skoda Kodiaq torque is 10 NM more than Ford Kuga.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 6.68.0
The Skoda Kodiaq is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
Skoda Kodiaq consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga, which means that by driving the Skoda Kodiaq over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel.
Fuel tank capacity: 58 litres60 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 870 km in combined cycle750 km in combined cycle
Skoda Kodiaq 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: Front wheel drive (FWD)All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4)

Dimensions

Length: 4.70 m4.52 m
Width: 1.88 m1.84 m
Height: 1.69 m1.69 m
Skoda Kodiaq is larger.
Skoda Kodiaq is 18 cm longer than the Ford Kuga, 4 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly.
Trunk capacity: 835 litres456 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down, if possible
2065 litresno data
Skoda Kodiaq has more luggage capacity.
Skoda Kodiaq has 379 litres more trunk space than the Ford Kuga.
Turning diameter: 12.2 meters11.1 meters
The turning circle of the Skoda Kodiaq is 1.1 metres more than that of the Ford Kuga, which means Skoda Kodiaq can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces.
Gross weight: 2`215 kgno data
Safety: no data
Quality: no data
average
Average price (€): 29 00011 800
Pros and Cons: Skoda Kodiaq has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • roomier boot
Ford Kuga has
  • has 4x4 drive
  • better manoeuvrability
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv