Volkswagen Tiguan II
Car comparison
Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDIvsFord Kuga II · Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonFord Kuga II · Facelift 2016
2.0 EcoBoost
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.5 s
- Fastest top speed228 km/h142 mph
- Highest torque500 Nm369 lb-ft
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.4 L/100 km36.8 mpg US44.1 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption7.4 L/100 km31.8 mpg US38.2 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption5.8 L/100 km40.6 mpg US48.7 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions167 g/km
- Best estimated range938 km583 mi
- Largest trunk615 L
- Best overall score68/100
- Best performance score59/100
- Best economy score90/100
- Best practicality score88/100
Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost
- Most powerful242 hp180 kW
- Lightest1,702 kg3,752 lb
- Best power-to-weight142 hp/t106 kW/t7.0 kg/hp
Specification comparison
| Model | VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 240hp179kW | 242hp180kW |
| Torque | 500Nm369lb-ft | 394Nm291lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,720kg3,792lb | 1,702kg3,752lb |
| Gross weight | 2,350kg5,181lb | 2,250kg4,960lb |
| Top speed | 228 km/h 142 mph | 212 km/h 132 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 68.0s99% target: 226 km/h / 140 mph Calculated | 88.2s99% target: 210 km/h / 130 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.5s | 8.8s |
| 0-200 km/h | 28.0s Calculated | 50.9s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.2s Calculated | 8.3s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.4L/100 km36.8mpg US44.1mpg UK | 8.7L/100 km27mpg US32.5mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 7.4L/100 km31.8mpg US38.2mpg UK | 11.3L/100 km20.8mpg US25.0mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.8L/100 km40.6mpg US48.7mpg UK | 7.2L/100 km32.7mpg US39.2mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.6s Calculated | 16.4s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 140hp/t104kW/t63hp/1000 lb Calculated | 142hp/t106kW/t64hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 291Nm/t195lb-ft/ton Calculated | 231Nm/t155lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 938km583mi Calculated | 690km429mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,968cc120cu in | 1,999cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,486mm177in | 4,531mm178in |
| Width | 1,839mm72in | 1,838mm72in |
| Height | 1,673mm66in | 1,703mm67in |
| Wheelbase | 2,677mm105in | 2,690mm106in |
| Front track | 1,586mm62in | 1,573mm62in |
| Rear track | 1,576mm62in | 1,583mm62in |
| Ground clearance | 200mm8in | - |
| Trunk volume | 615L | 456L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,655L | 1,653L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 60L | 60L |
| CO2 emissions | 167g/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.
- Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI: Power / Torque
- Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 4,000 rpm | 1,750-2,500 rpm | 4,250 rpm |
| FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost | 5,000 rpm | 2,500 rpm | 5,250 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.2 s | 8.3 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.5 s | 8.8 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 28.0 s | 50.9 s |
| Top speed | 228 km/h 142 mph | 212 km/h 132 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.4 s | 2.7 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.4 s | 7.1 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.5 s | 10.7 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.3 s | 13.8 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.6 s | 16.4 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 158 km/h 98 mph | 141 km/h 87 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 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 Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI.
The biggest power difference is between Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI 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
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 500 Nm 369 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
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 1,720 kg 3,792 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
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 228 km/h 142 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
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 6.5 s |
| FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost | 8.8 s |
Although Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost has more power, Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 2.3 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 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 Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 2.3 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 140 hp/t 104 kW/t 7.2 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
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 938 km 583 mi |
| FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost | 690 km 429 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 240 hp 179 kW | 6.5 s | 228 km/h 142 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.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI |
| 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK | ||||||
| FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost |
| 8.7 L/100 km 27.0 mpg US 32.5 mpg UK | ||||||
Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI 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.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK | 6.5 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.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 140 hp/t 104 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 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
| Vehicle | VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 240 hp 179 kW | 242 hp 180 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft | 394 Nm 291 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.5 s | 8.8 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 228 km/h 142 mph | 212 km/h 132 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,720 kg 3,792 lb | 1,702 kg 3,752 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK | 8.7 L/100 km 27.0 mpg US 32.5 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 938 km 583 mi | 690 km 429 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 167 g/km | 199 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 615 L 21.7 cu ft | 456 L 16.1 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 140 hp/t 104 kW/t 7.2 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
| Vehicle | Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI | Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.4 L/100 km36.8 mpg US44.1 mpg UK | 8.7 L/100 km27 mpg US32.5 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 11.20 LC100 km | 15.22 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 18.02 LC100 mi | 24.50 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 960 L254 US gal211 UK gal | 1,305 L345 US gal287 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,680 LC/year | 2,284 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI
- Has 106 Nm more
- Is 2.3 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 16 km/h (10 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 2.3 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 248 km (154 mi) more estimated range
- Has 159 L more trunk volume
- Emits 32 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Highest torque
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Lowest power
- Heaviest
Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost
- Has 2 hp more
- Is 18 kg lighter
- Has 3 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Most powerful
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























