Car comparison

Ford Kuga II · Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoostvsFord Evos 2.0 EcoBoost

Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.

New comparison

Ford Kuga II · Facelift 2016

2.0 EcoBoost

242 hp1999 ccGasolineAWDAutomaticTurbochargedSUV2017-2018
VS

Ford Evos

2.0 EcoBoost

238 hp1999 ccGasolineFWDAutomaticTurbochargedSUV2021-present

Comparison overview

Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.

Best choices

Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h
    6.6 s
  • Lightest
    1,655 kg
    3,649 lb
  • Best power-to-weight
    144 hp/t
    107 kW/t
    7.0 kg/hp
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    7.5 L/100 km
    31.4 mpg US
    37.7 mpg UK
  • Best estimated range
    880 km
    547 mi
  • Best overall score
    65/100
  • Best performance score
    53/100
  • Best economy score
    87/100
  • Best practicality score
    89/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelFordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostFordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
Power
242hp180kW
238hp177kW
Torque
394Nm291lb-ft
376Nm277lb-ft
Curb weight
1,702kg3,752lb
1,655kg3,649lb
Gross weight
2,250kg4,960lb
2,065kg4,553lb
Top speed
212 km/h
132 mph
193 km/h
120 mph
To 99% top speed
88.0s99% target: 210 km/h / 130 mph
Calculated
54.9s99% target: 191 km/h / 119 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
8.8s
6.6s
0-200 km/h
50.8s
Calculated
-
0-60 mph
8.3s
Calculated
6.2s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
8.7L/100 km27mpg US32.5mpg UK
7.5L/100 km31.4mpg US37.7mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
11.3L/100 km20.8mpg US25.0mpg UK
-
Fuel consumption highway
7.2L/100 km32.7mpg US39.2mpg UK
-
Quarter mile
16.4s
Calculated
14.8s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
142hp/t106kW/t64hp/1000 lb
Calculated
144hp/t107kW/t65hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
231Nm/t155lb-ft/ton
Calculated
227Nm/t152lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
690km429mi
Calculated
880km547mi
Calculated
Displacement
1,999cc122cu in
1,999cc122cu in
Length
4,531mm178in
4,920mm194in
Width
1,838mm72in
1,920mm76in
Height
1,703mm67in
1,600mm63in
Wheelbase
2,690mm106in
2,945mm116in
Front track
1,573mm62in
1,628mm64in
Rear track
1,583mm62in
1,610mm63in
Ground clearance-
168mm7in
Trunk volume
456L
-
Max trunk volume
1,653L
-
Doors
5
5
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank
60L
66L
CO2 emissions
199g/km
-

Performance charts

Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.

Dyno simulation

Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.

Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoostFord Evos 2.0 EcoBoostPowerTorque
  • Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
  • Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost5,000 rpm2,500 rpm5,250 rpm
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost5,500 rpm2,500-3,750 rpm6,800 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricFordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostFordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
8.3 s
6.2 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
8.8 s
6.6 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
50.8 s
-
Top speed
212 km/h
132 mph
193 km/h
120 mph
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.7 s
2.4 s
330 ft
101 m
7.1 s
6.3 s
1/8 mile
201 m
10.7 s
9.6 s
1000 ft
305 m
13.8 s
12.4 s
1/4 mile
402 m
16.4 s
14.8 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
141 km/h
87 mph
149 km/h
93 mph

Power comparison

Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
242 hp
180 kW
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
238 hp
177 kW

Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost has 4 hp more than Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost.

The biggest power difference is between Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 4 hp (3 kW).

Torque comparison

Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
394 Nm
291 lb-ft
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
376 Nm
277 lb-ft

Curb weight comparison

Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
1,702 kg
3,752 lb
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
1,655 kg
3,649 lb

Top speed without limiter comparison

Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
212 km/h
132 mph
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
193 km/h
120 mph

0-100 km/h comparison

Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost8.8 s
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost6.6 s

Although Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost has more power, Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost is quicker from 0-100 km/h.

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 2.2 s.

Fuel consumption comparison

Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
7.5 L/100 km
31.4 mpg US
37.7 mpg UK

The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 1.2 L/100 km.

Power-to-weight comparison

Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
142 hp/t
106 kW/t
7.0 kg/hp
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
144 hp/t
107 kW/t
7.0 kg/hp

Estimated range comparison

Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi

Chart data table
VehicleValue
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
690 km
429 mi
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
880 km
547 mi

Performance spider chart

Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.

Chart data table
VehiclePowerAccelerationTop speed
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
242 hp
180 kW
8.8 s
212 km/h
132 mph
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
238 hp
177 kW
6.6 s
193 km/h
120 mph

Most attractive quadrant

Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.

Chart data table
VehiclePerformance scorePracticality score
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Power
242 hp
180 kW
0-100 km/h8.8 s
Top speed
212 km/h
132 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
456 L
16.1 cu ft
Length
4,531 mm
178.4 in
Height
1,703 mm
67.0 in
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
Power
238 hp
177 kW
0-100 km/h6.6 s
Top speed
193 km/h
120 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk-
Length
4,920 mm
193.7 in
Height
1,600 mm
63.0 in

Performance vs fuel economy

Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.

Performance vs fuel economy data table
VehiclePerformance scoreFuel economy score
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Power
242 hp
180 kW
0-100 km/h8.8 s
Top speed
212 km/h
132 mph
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
Power
238 hp
177 kW
0-100 km/h6.6 s
Top speed
193 km/h
120 mph
7.5 L/100 km
31.4 mpg US
37.7 mpg UK

Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.

Acceleration vs fuel consumption

Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.

Acceleration vs fuel consumption data table
VehicleFuel consumption, L/100 km0-100 km/h, s
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK
8.8 s
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
7.5 L/100 km
31.4 mpg US
37.7 mpg UK
6.6 s

Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption

The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.

Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption data table
VehiclePower-to-weight, hp/tFuel consumption, L/100 km
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
142 hp/t
106 kW/t
7.0 kg/hp
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
144 hp/t
107 kW/t
7.0 kg/hp
7.5 L/100 km
31.4 mpg US
37.7 mpg UK

Detailed score breakdown

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleFordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostFordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
Power
242 hp
180 kW
238 hp
177 kW
Torque
394 Nm
291 lb-ft
376 Nm
277 lb-ft
Acceleration
8.8 s
6.6 s
Top speed
212 km/h
132 mph
193 km/h
120 mph
Lightness
1,702 kg
3,752 lb
1,655 kg
3,649 lb
Fuel consumption
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK
7.5 L/100 km
31.4 mpg US
37.7 mpg UK
Practicality
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
456 L
16.1 cu ft
Length
4,531 mm
178.4 in
Height
1,703 mm
67.0 in
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk-
Length
4,920 mm
193.7 in
Height
1,600 mm
63.0 in
Range score
690 km
429 mi
880 km
547 mi
CO2 score
199 g/km
-
Trunk score
456 L
16.1 cu ft
-
Power-to-weight score
142 hp/t
106 kW/t
7.0 kg/hp
144 hp/t
107 kW/t
7.0 kg/hp
Overall
Fixed score
Fixed score

Fuel cost and annual usage

Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.

Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.

LC = Local Currency

Fuel cost and annual usage
VehicleFord Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoostFord Evos 2.0 EcoBoost
Consumption8.7 L/100 km27 mpg US32.5 mpg UK7.5 L/100 km31.4 mpg US37.7 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km15.22 LC100 km13.13 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi24.50 LC100 mi21.12 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used1,305 L345 US gal287 UK gal1,125 L297 US gal247 UK gal
Annual fuel cost2,284 LC/year1,969 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost

  • Has 4 hp more
  • Has 18 Nm more
  • Has 19 km/h (12 mph) higher top speed

Pros

  • Highest top speed
  • Most powerful
  • Highest torque

Cons

  • Slowest 0-100 km/h
  • Highest combined fuel consumption
  • Heaviest

Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost

  • Is 47 kg lighter
  • Is 2.2 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Uses 1.2 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 2 hp/t better power-to-weight
  • Has 190 km (118 mi) more estimated range

Pros

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
  • Lightest
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
  • Best power-to-weight ratio
  • Best estimated range

Cons

  • Lowest power
  • Lowest top speed

Choose cars to compare

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Ford Kuga II 2.0 EcoBoost
Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

2.0 EcoBoost
2.0d
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsJaguarF-Pace2.0d
2.0 EcoBoost
ST 1.5 EcoBoost
VS
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoostvsFordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
Sport 2.0 T
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsSubaruForester IVFacelift 2016Sport 2.0 T
2.0 EcoBoost
25d
VS
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoostvsBMWX2 (F39)25d
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 T5
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsVolvoXC60 II2.0 T5
2.0 EcoBoost
300
VS
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoostvsLexusNX I (AZ10)Facelift 2017300
2.0 EcoBoost
3.3 MPi
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsHyundaiSanta Fe III (DM)Facelift 20153.3 MPi
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 TSI
VS
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenTiguan IIFacelift 20202.0 TSI
2.0 EcoBoost
650T
VS
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoostvsChevroletBlazer650T
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 T5
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsVolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 TSI
VS
FordEvos2.0 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenTouareg III (CR)2.0 TSI
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 BiTDI
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI
Ford Kuga II · Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost vs Ford Evos 2.0 EcoBoost - car comparison - FastVsFaster