Car comparison

Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T5vsFord Kuga II · Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost

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

New comparison

Volvo XC90 II

2.0 T5

250 hp1969 ccGasolineAWDAutomaticTurbochargedSUV2018-2019
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 XC90 II 2.0 T5

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h
    7.9 s
  • Fastest top speed
    215 km/h
    134 mph
  • Most powerful
    250 hp
    186 kW
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
    8.1 L/100 km
    29.0 mpg US
    34.9 mpg UK
  • Lowest city consumption
    10.2 L/100 km
    23.1 mpg US
    27.7 mpg UK
  • Lowest highway consumption
    7.1 L/100 km
    33.1 mpg US
    39.8 mpg UK
  • Lowest CO2 emissions
    189 g/km
  • Best estimated range
    877 km
    545 mi
  • Best performance score
    48/100
  • Best economy score
    85/100

Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost

  • Highest torque
    394 Nm
    291 lb-ft
  • Lightest
    1,702 kg
    3,752 lb
  • Best power-to-weight
    142 hp/t
    106 kW/t
    7.0 kg/hp
  • Largest trunk
    456 L
  • Best overall score
    59/100
  • Best practicality score
    83/100

Specification comparison

Specification comparison
ModelVolvoXC90 II2.0 T5FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Power
250hp186kW
242hp180kW
Torque
350Nm258lb-ft
394Nm291lb-ft
Curb weight
2,151kg4,742lb
1,702kg3,752lb
Gross weight-
2,250kg4,960lb
Top speed
215 km/h
134 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
To 99% top speed
93.5s99% target: 213 km/h / 132 mph
Calculated
88.0s99% target: 210 km/h / 130 mph
Calculated
0-100 km/h
7.9s
8.8s
0-200 km/h
47.5s
Calculated
50.8s
Calculated
0-60 mph
7.4s
Calculated
8.3s
Calculated
Fuel consumption
8.1L/100 km29mpg US34.9mpg UK
8.7L/100 km27mpg US32.5mpg UK
Fuel consumption city
10.2L/100 km23.1mpg US27.7mpg UK
11.3L/100 km20.8mpg US25.0mpg UK
Fuel consumption highway
7.1L/100 km33.1mpg US39.8mpg UK
7.2L/100 km32.7mpg US39.2mpg UK
Quarter mile
15.7s
Calculated
16.4s
Calculated
Power-to-weight
116hp/t87kW/t53hp/1000 lb
Calculated
142hp/t106kW/t64hp/1000 lb
Calculated
Torque-to-weight
163Nm/t109lb-ft/ton
Calculated
231Nm/t155lb-ft/ton
Calculated
Estimated range
877km545mi
Calculated
690km429mi
Calculated
Displacement
1,969cc120cu in
1,999cc122cu in
Length
4,950mm195in
4,531mm178in
Width
1,923mm76in
1,838mm72in
Height
1,776mm70in
1,703mm67in
Wheelbase
2,984mm117in
2,690mm106in
Front track
1,673mm66in
1,573mm62in
Rear track
1,675mm66in
1,583mm62in
Ground clearance
238mm9in
-
Trunk volume
314L
456L
Max trunk volume
1,886L
1,653L
Doors
5
5
Seats
5
5
Fuel tank
71L
60L
CO2 emissions
189g/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 XC90 II 2.0 T5Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoostPowerTorque
  • Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T5: Power / Torque
  • Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: Power / Torque
Dyno simulation data table
VehiclePeak power RPMPeak torque RPMMax engine speed
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T55,500 rpm1,800-4,800 rpm6,000 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
MetricVolvoXC90 II2.0 T5FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Acceleration checkpoints
0-60 mph
0-97 km/h
7.4 s
8.3 s
0-100 km/h
0-62 mph
7.9 s
8.8 s
0-200 km/h
0-124 mph
47.5 s
50.8 s
Top speed
215 km/h
134 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
Drag race simulation
60 ft
18 m
2.5 s
2.7 s
330 ft
101 m
6.7 s
7.1 s
1/8 mile
201 m
10.2 s
10.7 s
1000 ft
305 m
13.2 s
13.8 s
1/4 mile
402 m
15.7 s
16.4 s
Trap speed
1/4 mile
402 m
143 km/h
89 mph
141 km/h
87 mph

Power comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
250 hp
186 kW
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
242 hp
180 kW

Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T5 has 8 hp more than Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost.

The biggest power difference is between Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost and Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T5: 8 hp (6 kW).

Torque comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
350 Nm
258 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
2,151 kg
4,742 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
215 km/h
134 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T57.9 s
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost8.8 s

The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T5 and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 0.9 s.

Fuel consumption comparison

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

Chart data table
VehicleValue
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
8.1 L/100 km
29.0 mpg US
34.9 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 XC90 II 2.0 T5 and Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost: 0.6 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
116 hp/t
87 kW/t
8.6 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
877 km
545 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
250 hp
186 kW
7.9 s
215 km/h
134 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
Power
250 hp
186 kW
0-100 km/h7.9 s
Top speed
215 km/h
134 mph
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
314 L
11.1 cu ft
Length
4,950 mm
194.9 in
Height
1,776 mm
69.9 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
Power
250 hp
186 kW
0-100 km/h7.9 s
Top speed
215 km/h
134 mph
8.1 L/100 km
29.0 mpg US
34.9 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 XC90 II 2.0 T5 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
8.1 L/100 km
29.0 mpg US
34.9 mpg UK
7.9 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
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5
116 hp/t
87 kW/t
8.6 kg/hp
8.1 L/100 km
29.0 mpg US
34.9 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
VehicleVolvoXC90 II2.0 T5FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoost
Power
250 hp
186 kW
242 hp
180 kW
Torque
350 Nm
258 lb-ft
394 Nm
291 lb-ft
Acceleration
7.9 s
8.8 s
Top speed
215 km/h
134 mph
212 km/h
132 mph
Lightness
2,151 kg
4,742 lb
1,702 kg
3,752 lb
Fuel consumption
8.1 L/100 km
29.0 mpg US
34.9 mpg UK
8.7 L/100 km
27.0 mpg US
32.5 mpg UK
Practicality
Doors/seats
5 doors
5 seats
Trunk
314 L
11.1 cu ft
Length
4,950 mm
194.9 in
Height
1,776 mm
69.9 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
877 km
545 mi
690 km
429 mi
CO2 score
189 g/km
199 g/km
Trunk score
314 L
11.1 cu ft
456 L
16.1 cu ft
Power-to-weight score
116 hp/t
87 kW/t
8.6 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 XC90 II 2.0 T5Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost
Consumption8.1 L/100 km29 mpg US34.9 mpg UK8.7 L/100 km27 mpg US32.5 mpg UK
Cost / 100 km14.17 LC100 km15.22 LC100 km
Cost / 100 mi22.81 LC100 mi24.50 LC100 mi
Annual fuel used1,215 L321 US gal267 UK gal1,305 L345 US gal287 UK gal
Annual fuel cost2,126 LC/year2,284 LC/year

Head-to-head comparisons

Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T5

  • Has 8 hp more
  • Is 0.9 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
  • Has 3 km/h (2 mph) higher top speed
  • Uses 0.6 L/100 km less fuel
  • Has 187 km (116 mi) more estimated range
  • Emits 10 g/km less CO2

Pros

  • Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
  • Highest top speed
  • Most powerful
  • Lowest combined fuel consumption
  • Best estimated range

Cons

  • Heaviest
  • Smallest trunk

Ford Kuga II Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost

  • Has 44 Nm more
  • Is 449 kg lighter
  • Has 26 hp/t better power-to-weight
  • Has 142 L more trunk volume

Pros

  • Highest torque
  • Lightest
  • Best power-to-weight ratio
  • Largest trunk

Cons

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

Choose cars to compare

Brand
Model
Generation
Engine or modification
Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T5
Ford Kuga II 2.0 EcoBoost
Compare selected cars
2 vehicles selected

Popular comparisons

2.0 T5
4.4 V8
VS
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5vsVolvoXC90Facelift 20074.4 V8
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 EcoBoost
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsFordEvos2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 T5
2.0 T5
VS
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5vsVolvoXC60 II2.0 T5
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0d
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsJaguarF-Pace2.0d
2.0 T5
2.0 T5
VS
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5vsVolvoXC402.0 T5
2.0 EcoBoost
Sport 2.0 T
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsSubaruForester IVFacelift 2016Sport 2.0 T
2.0 T5
2.0 D240
VS
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5vsJaguarE-Pace2.0 D240
2.0 EcoBoost
3.3 MPi
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsHyundaiSanta Fe III (DM)Facelift 20153.3 MPi
2.0 T5
2.0i
VS
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5vsJaguarF-PaceFacelift 20202.0i
2.0 EcoBoost
ST 1.5 EcoBoost
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsFordPumaST 1.5 EcoBoost
2.0 T5
550T
VS
VolvoXC90 II2.0 T5vsChevroletEquinox III550T
2.0 EcoBoost
2.0 BiTDI
VS
FordKuga IIFacelift 20162.0 EcoBoostvsVolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI
Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T5 vs Ford Kuga II · Facelift 2016 2.0 EcoBoost - car comparison - FastVsFaster