Hyundai Tucson vs Ford Kuga: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
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
Ford · 2008–present
Kuga
No versions in our catalog yet
- Power
- 88–178 kW120–242 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
- Kerb mass
- -
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
| Hyundai Tucson | Ford Kuga | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | Tucson JM · 2.7 · petrol · 129 kW (175 PS) | No data |
| Production years | 2004–2009 | 2008–present |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | South Korea | United States |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 129 kW (175 PS) 173 hp | 88–178 kW (120–242 PS) 118–239 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 100–136 kW (136–185 PS) 134–182 hp | 88–178 kW (120–242 PS) 118–239 hp |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | 10.5 s | No data |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | 180 km/h 112 mph | No data |
| Power per tonne | 77 kW/t 94 hp/ton calculated | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | No data |
| Engine | 2,700 cc · 6 cyl 2.7 l | No data |
| Drive | All-wheel drive | All-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,325 mm 170.3 in † | No data |
| Width | 1,795 mm 70.7 in † | No data |
| Height | 1,730 mm 68.1 in † | No data |
| Wheelbase | 2,630 mm 103.5 in † | No data |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 1,668 kg 3,677 lb | No data |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 540 l 19.1 cu ft | No data |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 65 l 17.2 gal US | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 10.0 l/100 km 23.5 mpg US | No data |
| CO₂ | 237 g/km | No data |
| Fuel cost per year | €2,630/year estimated | No data |
| Range on a full tank | 650 km 404 mi estimated | No data |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★☆ (2006) | No data |
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.