Hyundai Tucson III vs Ford Kuga II: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Hyundai · 2015–2018
Tucson III
- Power
- 136 kW185 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 9.9 s
- Top speed
- 201 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 1,662 kg
Photo: RL GNZLZ / Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0
Ford · 2012–2019
Kuga II
No versions in our catalog yet
- Power
- 103–178 kW140–242 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
- Kerb mass
- -
Photo: Norbert Aepli, Switzerland (User:Noebu) / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0
In plain words
Ford Kuga II is the older design (from 2012); Hyundai Tucson III arrived in 2015. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Ford Kuga II yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Full specifications
| Hyundai Tucson III | Ford Kuga II | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 2.0 · diesel · 136 kW (185 PS) | No data |
| Production years | 2015–2018 | 2012–2019 |
| 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. | 136 kW (185 PS) 182 hp | 103–178 kW (140–242 PS) 138–239 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 110–136 kW (150–185 PS) 148–182 hp | 103–178 kW (140–242 PS) 138–239 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | No data |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | 9.9 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. | 201 km/h 125 mph | No data |
| Power per tonne | 82 kW/t 100 hp/ton calculated | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Diesel | No data |
| Engine | 2,000 cc 2.0 l | No data |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,475 mm 176.2 in † | No data |
| Width | 1,849 mm 72.8 in † | No data |
| Height | 1,651 mm 65.0 in † | No data |
| Wheelbase | 2,670 mm 105.1 in † | No data |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 1,662 kg 3,664 lb | No data |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 513 l 18.1 cu ft | No data |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | 62 l 16.4 gal US | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 5.9 l/100 km 39.9 mpg US | No data |
| CO₂ | 154 g/km | No data |
| Fuel cost per year | €1,460/year estimated | No data |
| Range on a full tank | 1,051 km 653 mi estimated | No data |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | ★★★★★ (2015) | ★★★★★ (2012) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (2): Body, 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. † from another version of this generation.