Compare two cars

Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion

Car #1
Make
Model
Variant
Engine
Car #2
Make
Model
Variant
Engine

compare selected cars
2013. - 2017.
J - SUV
suv, 5 door
4 x 4
Badges
Production
Vehicle class
Body style
Wheel drive
Safety
2016. - 2019.
J - SUV
suv, 5 door
4 x 4

Marketing

!function(v,t,o){var a=t.createElement("script");a.src="https://ad.vidverto.io/vidverto/js/aries/v1/invocation.js",a.setAttribute("fetchpriority","high");var r=v.top;r.document.head.appendChild(a),v.self!==v.top&&(v.frameElement.style.cssText="width:0px!important;height:0px!important;"),r.aries=r.aries||{},r.aries.v1=r.aries.v1||{commands:[]};var c=r.aries.v1;c.commands.push((function(){var d=document.getElementById("_vidverto-725dc94bb887f000f0b279c49613751c");d.setAttribute("id",(d.getAttribute("id")+(new Date()).getTime()));var t=v.frameElement||d;c.mount("10285",t,{width:720,height:405})}))}(window,document); */ ?>

Dimensons & Outlines

4640 mm
1820 mm
1710 mm
550 liters
1982 liters
60 liters
Length
Width
Height
Boot (min)
Boot (max)
Fuel tank
4531 mm
1838 mm
1703 mm
456 liters
1603 liters
60 liters
2013 Nissan X-Trail
2016 Ford Kuga

Engine

Renault / Nissan
2.0 dCi M9R 178
Diesel
4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Turbo
1995 cc
178 hp
400 Nm
Engine
Fuel
Configuration
Aspiration
Displacement
Power
Torque
Peugeot / Ford
2.0 DW10 FC
Diesel
4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Turbo
1997 cc
180 hp
400 Nm

Performance (manual gearbox)

manual gearbox - 6 gears
1540 kg
9.4 s
204 km/h
6.3 l/100km
5.3 l/100km
5.6 l/100km
149 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
manual gearbox - 6 gears
1702 kg
9.2 s
202 km/h
6.0 l/100km
4.7 l/100km
5.2 l/100km
135 g/km

Performance (automatic gearbox)

automatic - 6 gears
1590 kg
10.0 s
196 km/h
6.6 l/100km
5.6 l/100km
6.0 l/100km
158 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
dual clutch - 6 gears
1716 kg
10.0 s
200 km/h
5.5 l/100km
4.9 l/100km
5.2 l/100km
134 g/km

Expenses

13200 EUR
Price from
14300 EUR

Virtual Adviser's™ opinion

Overview

Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Renault-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 178hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 180hp engine designed by Peugeot.

Safety

A starting point here would be to take a look at the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests which were performed on both of the cars, with the same number of safety stars gained in the process. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the American car offers a considerable difference of 11% more metal.

Reliability

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Nissan with an average rating of 4.3, and models under the Ford badge with 4.4 out of 5. Independent research findings rank X-Trail as average reliability-wise, and Kuga is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.5 out of 5, exactly the same as the other one.

Performance & Fuel economy

Ford is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.2 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 202 kilometers per hour, 2km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (52 mpg), in combined cycle.


Verdict

Ford appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the American car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. When it comes to performance, both vehicles provide similar experience, so I wouldn't point any of them out. the American car still consumps less fuel, which needs to be taken into consideration. All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Ford. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.

Check a car by its VIN number

Follow us

AutoManiac Instagram

AutoManiac Facebook

AutoManiac database currently covers:

47worldwide automotive brands
1.613different vehicle models
2.331engines
14.590specific cars