The horsepower of the Land Rover Freelander II is by 20 % grater in relation to the Ford Kuga I. While the difference is small it should not affect the car performance to a large extent.
The Land Rover Freelander II burns up 0.5 l less in the combined cycle when compared to the Ford. The difference at the level of 0.5 l is not significant. At the same time during a longer period of time it can generate a real savings.
The Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4 consumes 6 % fewer fuel in city traffic in relation to the Ford. The Land Rover Freelander II, that represents small off-road 4x4 class, burns up 3.7 l fewer gasoline. Note that average fuel consumption in the urban for the compact SUV class equals to 9.6 l, while the Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4 consumes by 39 % more amount of fuel than the average.
The boot of the Land Rover is 109 percent more spacious compared to the Ford Kuga I. It is sensible difference so, in this category the Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4 will be a way more practical. The larger the boot, the more luggage you can take.
Trunk capacity with seats down
The Land Rover is 53 millimeters longer than the Ford Kuga I. Long vehicles have roomy cabin and also provide bigger trunk. Although the Land Rover seems to be better for families or persons who love the idea of convenient rides that make them feel fresh and relaxed upon arriving, the Ford may be more appropriate to singles because it will not cause problems with parking and will have smaller turning radius.
For a ride around town, it is tempting to opt for an automatic but the type of transmisison may have a substantial impact on fuel consumption. Automatics may burn up from 5 to 10% more than manuals.