Ford Kuga vs Hyundai Tucson: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Ford · 2008–present
Kuga
No versions in our catalog yet
- Power
- 88–178 kW120–242 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
- Kerb mass
- -
Hyundai · 2004–2009
Tucson JM
- Power
- 129 kW175 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 10.5 s
- Top speed
- 180 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 1,668 kg
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- Off-road Too close to call Drive and body: All-wheel drive · SUV vs All-wheel drive · SUV
In plain words
Hyundai Tucson is the older design (from 2004); Ford Kuga arrived in 2008. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Ford Kuga yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Full specifications
| Ford Kuga | Hyundai Tucson | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | No data | Tucson JM · 2.7 · petrol · 129 kW (175 PS) |
| Production years | 2008–present | 2004–2009 |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | United States | South Korea |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 88–178 kW (120–242 PS) 118–239 hp Better | 129 kW (175 PS) 173 hp |
| Power, all versions | 88–178 kW (120–242 PS) 118–239 hp | 100–136 kW (136–185 PS) 134–182 hp |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | No data | 10.5 s |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | No data | 180 km/h 112 mph |
| Power per tonne | No data | 77 kW/t 94 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Petrol |
| Engine | No data | 2,700 cc · 6 cyl 2.7 l |
| Drive | All-wheel drive | All-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | No data | 4,325 mm 170.3 in † |
| Width | No data | 1,795 mm 70.7 in † |
| Height | No data | 1,730 mm 68.1 in † |
| Wheelbase | No data | 2,630 mm 103.5 in † |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | No data | 1,668 kg 3,677 lb |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | No data | 540 l 19.1 cu ft |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | No data | 65 l 17.2 gal US |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 10.0 l/100 km 23.5 mpg US |
| CO₂ | No data | 237 g/km |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €2,630/year estimated |
| Range on a full tank | No data | 650 km 404 mi estimated |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | No data | ★★★★☆ (2006) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (3): Body, Class, Drive.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.75/l petrol. † from another version of this generation.