Ford Kuga vs Kia Sportage: 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
- -
Kia · 2010–2015
Sportage SL
- Power
- 85 kW116 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 12.3 s
- Top speed
- 173 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 1,490 kg
In plain words
Kia Sportage is the older design (from 1993); 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 | Kia Sportage | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | No data | Sportage SL · 1.7 · diesel · 85 kW (116 PS) |
| Production years | 2008–present | 2010–2015 |
| Body | SUV | SUV, Convertible |
| 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 | 85 kW (116 PS) 114 hp |
| Power, all versions | 88–178 kW (120–242 PS) 118–239 hp | 61–195 kW (83–265 PS) 82–261 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | No data | 260 Nm 192 lb-ft |
| 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 | 12.3 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 | 173 km/h 107 mph |
| Power per tonne | No data | 57 kW/t 69 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Diesel |
| Engine | No data | 1,700 cc 1.7 l |
| Gearbox | No data | 6-speed manual |
| Drive | All-wheel drive | Front-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | No data | 4,440 mm 174.8 in |
| Width | No data | 1,855 mm 73.0 in |
| Height | No data | 1,635 mm 64.4 in |
| Wheelbase | No data | 2,640 mm 103.9 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | No data | 1,490 kg 3,285 lb |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | No data | 465 l 16.4 cu ft |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | No data | 58 l 15.3 gal US |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 5.3 l/100 km 44.4 mpg US |
| CO₂ | No data | 139 g/km |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €1,310/year estimated |
| Range on a full tank | No data | 1,094 km 680 mi estimated |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | No data | ★★★★★ (2010) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (1): Class.
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 €1.65/l diesel.