Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4 vs Ford Kuga II 1.6 EcoBoost 150HP manual

Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4

Source: wikipedia.org OSX All Rights Released into the public domain

16 reasons for

Land Rover Freelander II, model available from 2006.
It has 2.0 Si4 240HP ic petrol engine produced from 2011.
Drive 4x4 has automatic, 6 speed gearbox.

10 reasons for

Ford Kuga II, model available from 2012.
It has 1.6 EcoBoost 150HP petrol engine produced from 2012.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 6 speed gearbox.

Ford Kuga II 1.6 EcoBoost 150HP manual
Land Rover

16 reasons for Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240KM automat 4x4 in comparison to Ford Kuga II 1.6 EcoBoost 150HP manual

Reasons for
135

Maximal power

240 > 150 hp
The Land Rover Freelander II has by 90 hp more horsepower compared to Ford Kuga II. The Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4 will be distinctly faster accelerate owing to grater horsepower. Also overtaking cars or obstacles should be a piece of cake for a vehicle equipped with stronger motor.
59

Maximal torque

338 > 240 Nm
The Land Rover Freelander II has 98 Nm more torque when compared to the Ford Kuga II. Although a large number of people do not appreciate the maximum torque when buying a automobile, it reflects the best how a car is speeding up. As far as these two vehicles are cars the difference is substantial hence the Land Rover Freelander II will provide you with better sensation of driving.
50

Acceleration 0-100 km/h

8.6 > 9.7 s
The Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4 accelerates from 0 to 100 Km/h in 8.6 s, which is 1.1 s less in comparison to the Ford Kuga II. But the difference is not as much big to be taken into consideration when buying a automobile.
38

Trunk capacity

754 > 456 l
With more trunk space the Land Rover Freelander II will have much more room for carrying things and be more usefull car compared with the Ford Kuga II 1.6 EcoBoost 150HP manual. If the capacity of the trunk is what does appeal to you, the Land Rover Freelander II will be better choice as it is around 298 liters larger than the boot of the Ford.
33

Top speed

200 > 195 km/h
The maximum velocity possible to be reached by the ​​Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4 is greater in comparison to the Ford Kuga II by 5 kilometers per hour, which allows the Land Rover Freelander II to travel faster large distance of highway. The difference at the level of 5 km/h is little and will not be a very noticable in everyday driving.
11

Trunk length with seats up

913 > 843 mm
9

Ground clearance

209 > 190 mm
Ground clearance means the space between the car body and the road. taking these two cars into consideration, it is the Land Rover Freelander II that has 19 mm higher ride height in relation to the Ford Kuga II. For this reason the Land Rover Freelander II will cope better when driving over imperfect roads and obstacles in the city. One drawback is the higher ride height equals a higher center of gravity, which can negatively affect the handling of the vehicle.
8

Engine capacity

1,998 > 1,597 cc
The engine cubic capacity of the Land Rover Freelander II is by 25 percent bigger when compared to the Ford. As a result the Ford Kuga II 1.6 EcoBoost 150HP manual will consume less fuel, but, the engine of the Land Rover Freelander II will be of better quality, working more smoothly and more durable.
8

Gross trailer weight

2,003 > 1,995 kg
4

Rear track

1,625 > 1,565 mm
3

Price range

luxury > popular
0

Transmission

automatic > manual
For those who value more functional use of a car and who don’t want complications resulting from the stick shift we recommend cars with automatic transmission. For those who have a flair for sport driving a manual gearbox might be better as it gives a control of rmp range in which a shift take place.
0

Maximal power RPM

5,500 > 5,700 revolutions/minute
0

Trunk height

883 > 593 mm
0

Front track

1,608 > 1,561 mm
0

Curb weight

1,778 > 1,580 kg

Ford

10 reasons for Ford Kuga II 1.6 EcoBoost 150KM manual in comparison to Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4

Reasons for
112

Average consumption

6.6 > 9.4 l
The fuel economy is considerably to Ford's advantage. This car uses 2.8 l less gasoline in the mixed cycle in comparison to the Land Rover Freelander II. Bear in mind that average fuel consumption in the combined cycle for the small off-road 4x4 segment, in which the Ford is classified, equals to 7.5 l while the Ford Kuga II uses by 12 percent less amount of fuel than the average.
56

Urban consumption

8.5 > 13.3 l
The Ford Kuga II consumes 4.8 l less fuel in urban cycle in relation to the Land Rover. The difference at the level of 36 percent will be quite big in everyday use of car. Additionally, within years it may generate gigantic cost savings. Moreover keep in mind that presented results of the average fuel efficiency may be considerably increased if you ride swiftly. The difference in fuel economy of the cars selected by you is so huge that you should consider to choose vehicles with similar engines. Only then will the comparision be adequate.
33

Trunk capacity with seats down

1,693 > 1,671 l
30

Maximal torque RPM

1,600 > 1,750 revolutions/minute
The rotational speed at which the maximum torque is delivered shows us how fast an engine reaches its full efficiency with growth in revolutions. The lower rmp or the longer range in which the torque has the highest value, the more the engine is flexible and the kick of acceleration should be felt earlier.
24

Extra-urban consumption

5.6 > 7.5 l
15

Wheelbase

2,693 > 2,655 mm
Ford has 38 mm longer wheelbase when compared to the Land Rover Freelander II. A longer wheelbase provides more stable and comfortable ride, especially when driving fast. It also gives more storage space. However, vehicles with a longer wheelbase will not be as maneuverable as those with a shorter length between its axles.
6

Length

4,524 > 4,500 mm
The Ford is 1 percent longer than the Land Rover. Long vehicles are more spacious and usually have plenty of trunk space. While the Ford Kuga II 1.6 EcoBoost 150HP manual occurs to be better for families or persons who appreciate comfortable driving, the Land Rover Freelander II may be more appropriate to singles as it will not make troubles with parking and will have smaller turning radius.
1

Model release date

2012 > 2006
Production of the older vehicle commenced 6 years prior to its competitor thus man may suspect that this vehicle features significantly less advanced technologies used.
1

Height

1,745 > 1,740 mm
If you are a tall man or you happen to carry in the trunk thinks of big dimensions, the Ford Kuga II, which is by 5 mm higher than the Land Rover Freelander II, would be better option for you. However, compared vehicles do not differ much it the aspect of its height and it should not be much observable.
1

Trunk length with seats down

1,691 > 1,569 mm

Cars specifications

Land Rover Freelander II 2.0 Si4 240HP automatic 4x4 Ford Kuga II 1.6 EcoBoost 150HP manual
    Gross trailer weight 2,003 kg 1,995 kg
    Price range luxury popular
    Model release date 2006 2012
    Facelifting no no
    Class compact SUV compact SUV
By using this site, you agree to the storage and use of cookie files. OK