Car comparison

Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I · Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4vsFord Kuga II · Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost

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

New comparison

Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I · Facelift 2015

2.0 Si4

240 hp1999 ccGasolineAWDAutomaticTurbochargedSUV2015-2018
VS

Ford Kuga II · Facelift 2016

2.0 EcoBoost

242 hp1999 ccGasolineAWDAutomaticTurbochargedSUV2017-2018

Comparison overview

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

Best choices

Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h
    7.6 s
  • Fastest top speed
    217 km/h
    135 mph
  • Lightest
    1,658 kg
    3,655 lb
  • Best power-to-weight
    145 hp/t
    108 kW/t
    6.9 kg/hp
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    7.8 L/100 km
    30.2 mpg US
    36.2 mpg UK
  • Lowest city consumption
    10.3 L/100 km
    22.8 mpg US
    27.4 mpg UK
  • Lowest highway consumption
    6.4 L/100 km
    36.8 mpg US
    44.1 mpg UK
  • Lowest CO2 emissions
    181 g/km
  • Best estimated range
    897 km
    558 mi
  • Best overall score
    62/100
  • Best performance score
    50/100
  • Best economy score
    86/100
  • Best practicality score
    89/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelLand RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Power
240hp179kW
242hp180kW
Torque
340Nm251lb-ft
394Nm291lb-ft
Curb weight
1,658kg3,655lb
1,702kg3,752lb
Gross weight-
2,250kg4,960lb
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
To 99% top speed
86.9s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph
Calculated
88.0s99% target: 210 km/h / 130 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
7.6s
8.8s
0-200 km/h
42.4s
Calculated
50.8s
Calculated
0-60 mph
7.2s
Calculated
8.3s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK
8.7L/100 km27mpg US32.5mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
10.3L/100 km22.8mpg US27.4mpg UK
11.3L/100 km20.8mpg US25.0mpg UK
Fuel consumption highway
6.4L/100 km36.8mpg US44.1mpg UK
7.2L/100 km32.7mpg US39.2mpg UK
Quarter mile
15.5s
Calculated
16.4s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
145hp/t108kW/t66hp/1000 lb
Calculated
142hp/t106kW/t64hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
205Nm/t137lb-ft/ton
Calculated
231Nm/t155lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
897km558mi
Calculated
690km429mi
Calculated
Displacement
1,999cc122cu in
1,999cc122cu in
Length
4,371mm172in
4,531mm178in
Width
1,985mm78in
1,838mm72in
Height
1,660mm65in
1,703mm67in
Wheelbase
2,660mm105in
2,690mm106in
Front track
1,625mm64in
1,573mm62in
Rear track
1,629mm64in
1,583mm62in
Trunk volume-
456L
Max trunk volume-
1,653L
Doors
5
5
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank
70L
60L
CO2 emissions
181g/km
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.

Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoostPowerTorque
  • Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4: Power / Torque
  • Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si45,800 rpm1,750 rpm6,050 rpm
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost5,000 rpm2,500 rpm5,250 rpm

Acceleration curve

Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.

Acceleration and drag-race table
MetricLand RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
7.2 s
8.3 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
7.6 s
8.8 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
42.4 s
50.8 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.5 s
2.7 s
330 ft
101 m
6.6 s
7.1 s
1/8 mile
201 m
10.1 s
10.7 s
1000 ft
305 m
13.0 s
13.8 s
1/4 mile
402 m
15.5 s
16.4 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
146 km/h
91 mph
141 km/h
87 mph

Power comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
240 hp
179 kW
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
242 hp
180 kW

Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost has 2 hp more than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4.

The biggest power difference is between Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4 and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 2 hp (1 kW).

Torque comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
340 Nm
251 lb-ft
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
394 Nm
291 lb-ft

Curb weight comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
1,658 kg
3,655 lb
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
1,702 kg
3,752 lb

Top speed without limiter comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
217 km/h
135 mph
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
212 km/h
132 mph

0-100 km/h comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si47.6 s
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost8.8 s

Although Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost has more power, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4 and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 1.2 s.

Fuel consumption comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
7.8 L/100 km
30.2 mpg US
36.2 mpg UK
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK

The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4 and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 0.9 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
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
145 hp/t
108 kW/t
6.9 kg/hp
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
142 hp/t
106 kW/t
7.0 kg/hp

Estimated range comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
897 km
558 mi
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
690 km
429 mi

Performance spider chart

Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.

Chart data table
VehiclePowerAccelerationTop speed
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
240 hp
179 kW
7.6 s
217 km/h
135 mph
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
242 hp
180 kW
8.8 s
212 km/h
132 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
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h7.6 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk-
Length
4,371 mm
172.1 in
Height
1,660 mm
65.4 in
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

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
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
Power
240 hp
179 kW
0-100 km/h7.6 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
7.8 L/100 km
30.2 mpg US
36.2 mpg UK
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

Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4 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
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
7.8 L/100 km
30.2 mpg US
36.2 mpg UK
7.6 s
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK
8.8 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
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4
145 hp/t
108 kW/t
6.9 kg/hp
7.8 L/100 km
30.2 mpg US
36.2 mpg UK
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

Detailed score breakdown

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleLand RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Power
240 hp
179 kW
242 hp
180 kW
Torque
340 Nm
251 lb-ft
394 Nm
291 lb-ft
Acceleration
7.6 s
8.8 s
Top speed
217 km/h
135 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
Lightness
1,658 kg
3,655 lb
1,702 kg
3,752 lb
Fuel consumption
7.8 L/100 km
30.2 mpg US
36.2 mpg UK
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK
Practicality
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk-
Length
4,371 mm
172.1 in
Height
1,660 mm
65.4 in
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
Range score
897 km
558 mi
690 km
429 mi
CO2 score
181 g/km
199 g/km
Trunk score
-
456 L
16.1 cu ft
Power-to-weight score
145 hp/t
108 kW/t
6.9 kg/hp
142 hp/t
106 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
VehicleLand Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost
Consumption7.8 L/100 km30.2 mpg US36.2 mpg UK8.7 L/100 km27 mpg US32.5 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km13.65 LC100 km15.22 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi21.97 LC100 mi24.50 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used1,170 L309 US gal257 UK gal1,305 L345 US gal287 UK gal
Annual fuel cost2,048 LC/year2,284 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4

  • Is 44 kg lighter
  • Is 1.2 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Has 5 km/h (3 mph) higher top speed
  • Uses 0.9 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 3 hp/t better power-to-weight
  • Has 208 km (129 mi) more estimated range
  • Emits 18 g/km less CO2

Pros

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

Cons

  • Lowest power

Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost

  • Has 2 hp more
  • Has 54 Nm more

Pros

  • Most powerful
  • Highest torque

Cons

  • Slowest 0-100 km/h
  • Highest combined fuel consumption
  • Heaviest
  • Lowest top speed
  • Highest CO2 emissions

Choose cars to compare

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I 2.0 Si4
Ford Kuga II 2.0 EcoBoost
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

2.0 Si4
Sport 2.0 T
VS
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4vsSubaruForester IVFacelift 2016Sport 2.0 T
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsFordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 Si4
2.0d
VS
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4vsJaguarF-Pace2.0d
2.0 Si4
200t
VS
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4vsLexusNX I (AZ10)200t
2.0 Si4
2.0 BiTDI
VS
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4vsVolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 T5
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsVolvoXC60 II2.0 T5
2.0 Si4
2.0
VS
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4vsPorscheMacan I (95B)2.0
2.0 EcoBoost
3.3 MPi
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsHyundaiSanta Fe III (DM)Facelift 20153.3 MPi
2.0 Si4
25d
VS
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4vsBMWX1 (F48)25d
2.0 EcoBoost
ST 1.5 EcoBoost
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsFordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 T5
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsVolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
2.0 Si4
2.0 TFSI
VS
Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4vsAUDIQ5 I (8R)Facelift 20122.0 TFSI
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I · Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4 vs Ford Kuga II · Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost - car comparison - FastVsFaster