Car comparison

Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5vsFord Kuga II · Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost

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

New comparison

Volvo XC60 II

2.0 D5

235 hp1969 ccDieselAWDAutomaticTwin-turboSUV2017-2018
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

Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h
    7.2 s
  • Fastest top speed
    220 km/h
    137 mph
  • Highest torque
    480 Nm
    354 lb-ft
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    6.0 L/100 km
    39.2 mpg US
    47.1 mpg UK
  • Lowest city consumption
    6.8 L/100 km
    34.6 mpg US
    41.5 mpg UK
  • Lowest highway consumption
    5.5 L/100 km
    42.8 mpg US
    51.4 mpg UK
  • Lowest CO2 emissions
    158 g/km
  • Best estimated range
    1,183 km
    735 mi
  • Largest trunk
    505 L
  • Best overall score
    64/100
  • Best performance score
    54/100
  • Best economy score
    91/100
  • Best practicality score
    85/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelVolvoXC60 II2.0 D5FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Power
235hp175kW
242hp180kW
Torque
480Nm354lb-ft
394Nm291lb-ft
Curb weight
1,976kg4,356lb
1,702kg3,752lb
Gross weight
2,470kg5,445lb
2,250kg4,960lb
Top speed
220 km/h
137 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
To 99% top speed
81.4s99% target: 218 km/h / 135 mph
Calculated
88.0s99% target: 210 km/h / 130 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
7.2s
8.8s
0-200 km/h
37.3s
Calculated
50.8s
Calculated
0-60 mph
6.8s
Calculated
8.3s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
6L/100 km39.2mpg US47.1mpg UK
8.7L/100 km27mpg US32.5mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
6.8L/100 km34.6mpg US41.5mpg UK
11.3L/100 km20.8mpg US25.0mpg UK
Fuel consumption highway
5.5L/100 km42.8mpg US51.4mpg UK
7.2L/100 km32.7mpg US39.2mpg UK
Quarter mile
15.2s
Calculated
16.4s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
119hp/t89kW/t54hp/1000 lb
Calculated
142hp/t106kW/t64hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
243Nm/t163lb-ft/ton
Calculated
231Nm/t155lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
1,183km735mi
Calculated
690km429mi
Calculated
Displacement
1,969cc120cu in
1,999cc122cu in
Length
4,688mm185in
4,531mm178in
Width
1,902mm75in
1,838mm72in
Height
1,658mm65in
1,703mm67in
Wheelbase
2,865mm113in
2,690mm106in
Front track
1,668mm66in
1,573mm62in
Rear track
1,673mm66in
1,583mm62in
Ground clearance
216mm9in
-
Trunk volume
505L
456L
Max trunk volume
1,432L
1,653L
Doors
5
5
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank
71L
60L
CO2 emissions
158g/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.

Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoostPowerTorque
  • Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5: Power / Torque
  • Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D54,000 rpm1,750-2,250 rpm4,250 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
MetricVolvoXC60 II2.0 D5FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
6.8 s
8.3 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
7.2 s
8.8 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
37.3 s
50.8 s
Top speed
220 km/h
137 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.4 s
2.7 s
330 ft
101 m
6.5 s
7.1 s
1/8 mile
201 m
9.9 s
10.7 s
1000 ft
305 m
12.8 s
13.8 s
1/4 mile
402 m
15.2 s
16.4 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
149 km/h
93 mph
141 km/h
87 mph

Power comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
235 hp
175 kW
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
242 hp
180 kW

Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost has 7 hp more than Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5.

The biggest power difference is between Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5 and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 7 hp (5 kW).

Torque comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
480 Nm
354 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
1,976 kg
4,356 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
220 km/h
137 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D57.2 s
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost8.8 s

Although Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost has more power, Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5 and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 1.6 s.

Fuel consumption comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 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 Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5 and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 2.7 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
119 hp/t
89 kW/t
8.4 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
1,183 km
735 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
235 hp
175 kW
7.2 s
220 km/h
137 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
Power
235 hp
175 kW
0-100 km/h7.2 s
Top speed
220 km/h
137 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
505 L
17.8 cu ft
Length
4,688 mm
184.6 in
Height
1,658 mm
65.3 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
Power
235 hp
175 kW
0-100 km/h7.2 s
Top speed
220 km/h
137 mph
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 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

Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 mpg UK
7.2 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
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5
119 hp/t
89 kW/t
8.4 kg/hp
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 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

Detailed score breakdown
VehicleVolvoXC60 II2.0 D5FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Power
235 hp
175 kW
242 hp
180 kW
Torque
480 Nm
354 lb-ft
394 Nm
291 lb-ft
Acceleration
7.2 s
8.8 s
Top speed
220 km/h
137 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
Lightness
1,976 kg
4,356 lb
1,702 kg
3,752 lb
Fuel consumption
6.0 L/100 km
39.2 mpg US
47.1 mpg UK
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK
Practicality
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
505 L
17.8 cu ft
Length
4,688 mm
184.6 in
Height
1,658 mm
65.3 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
1,183 km
735 mi
690 km
429 mi
CO2 score
158 g/km
199 g/km
Trunk score
505 L
17.8 cu ft
456 L
16.1 cu ft
Power-to-weight score
119 hp/t
89 kW/t
8.4 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
VehicleVolvo XC60 II 2.0 D5Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost
Consumption6 L/100 km39.2 mpg US47.1 mpg UK8.7 L/100 km27 mpg US32.5 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km10.50 LC100 km15.22 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi16.90 LC100 mi24.50 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used900 L238 US gal198 UK gal1,305 L345 US gal287 UK gal
Annual fuel cost1,575 LC/year2,284 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5

  • Has 86 Nm more
  • Is 1.6 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Has 8 km/h (5 mph) higher top speed
  • Uses 2.7 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 494 km (307 mi) more estimated range
  • Has 49 L more trunk volume
  • Emits 41 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 7 hp more
  • Is 274 kg lighter
  • Has 23 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

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5
Ford Kuga II 2.0 EcoBoost
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

2.0 D5
2.0 D5
VS
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5vsVolvoXC90 II2.0 D5
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsFordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 D5
2.0 T5
VS
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5vsVolvoXC402.0 T5
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0d
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsJaguarF-Pace2.0d
2.0 EcoBoost
Sport 2.0 T
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsSubaruForester IVFacelift 2016Sport 2.0 T
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 T5
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsVolvoXC60 II2.0 T5
2.0 D5
2.0
VS
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5vsPorscheMacan 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 D5
JCW 2.0
VS
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5vsMiniCountryman (F60)JCW 2.0
2.0 EcoBoost
ST 1.5 EcoBoost
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsFordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
2.0 D5
2.0 D240
VS
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5vsJaguarE-Pace2.0 D240
2.0 D5
2.0 BiTDI
VS
VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5vsVolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI
Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5 vs Ford Kuga II · Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost - car comparison - FastVsFaster