All New Ford Kuga Review

[Rodge]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/226219/2...d-kuga-review/

What do you think ?

I think it looks like a great addition to the Ford family, with the usual good strength's of sharp handling and great steering feel but I am unsure about the "efficiency" of the little 1.6 litre Ecoboost engine.

Car Advice's experience of real world consumption of 13.7 L/100 km's against a claimed 8.0 L/100 km''s is enough to have someone wondering if the little 1.6 is really up to the job ? If its always being asked to make boost then it appears the ecoboost system isn't such a great idea after all ? Note the new naturally aspirated engine in the Mazda CX5 is rated for 7.4L /100 km's and i'd guess it would give a result closer to its claimed consumption than the Kuga does.
OTOH the diesel achieved its claimed consumption of 6.4 L/100 km;'s in the real world, go figure ?

What's your thoughts on the new Kuga ? Were Car advice a little harsh giving it only 3.5 stars out of 5 ? I'm thinking 4 out of 5 is warranted. Handling, steering and latest cutting edge technology, (some of which is a first in this class of vehicle and price point), when fitted with the optional tech kit appears to be core strength's and I reckon it would make for a good all round SUV in diesel form, (provided you frequently do open road running to clear out the DPF filter).

I reckon they should fit the 2.0 Ecoboost petrol, the extra torque would probably make the vehicle far more pleasureable to drive and fuel efficient too.

[davenl5l]

my daughter said she would buy one except no manual in the titanium so she is now looking at a damn reno

[Yellow_Festiva]

Is the 8l/100 urban or combined? And was the real figure achieved the same way?

13.7L per 100 sounds like it was flogged to death to be honest.... who was driving it? Was it a review where they share the opinion, and driving between 3 people???

That consumption will scare many buyers away... there should be set standards on how to do a review on a car. Give me any car and I can get factory consumption figures or I can almost double them. Depends on how I drive it..... Which isn't a true reflection of the cars abilities.

[1TUFFUTE]

yeah with figures like that im sure theres more to the story as that's pretty bad actually. Ill wait and see what some more journos get before I start worrying about the 1.6s ability. The diesel looks like it did its job tho and id assume will be far more popular anyway....great car

[Brazen]

Ecoboost has disappointing real world urban fuel usage. But they are good on the highway.

[EDManual]

Small turbo engines are useless for people like me who would always have them floored. Only for your slow a to b type driver.

[SumoDog68]

Small turbo engine will have best efficiency when not boosting . That is why many companies use them to show low fuel consumption stickers. If small boosted engine is driven to perform like larger NA engine it will use the same (if not more) amount of fuel.
So with small modern turbo engine you are getting two engines in one. Call it variable throttle controlled displacement.
But there are issues with it as you can see Holden is upping their Cruze turbo from 1.4 to 1.6 and VW is rethinking their twincharge to simple turbo.
I prefer linear response of larger NA engine or if turbo at least 2l in capacity to still have some response off boost.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Is the 8l/100 urban or combined? And was the real figure achieved the same way?

13.7L per 100 sounds like it was flogged to death to be honest.... who was driving it? Was it a review where they share the opinion, and driving between 3 people???

That consumption will scare many buyers away... there should be set standards on how to do a review on a car. Give me any car and I can get factory consumption figures or I can almost double them. Depends on how I drive it..... Which isn't a true reflection of the cars abilities.

Its the combined consumption. As we know the ADR figures are obtained in a lab environment and involve quite gentle acceleration simulations and a lot of time in the test is actually stopped, simulating traffic light situations. This would be why a lot of car company's are fitting idle stop systems to achieve better lab results. But this isn't going to be how most Ecoboost Kuga's are driven is it ? (Typically Mum's are in a hurry delivering kids to school or soccer practice e.t.c. e.t.c.).

I'd assume the diesel was driven in the same "evaluation manner", (which I think its safe to assume most testers drive them pretty hard). My experience with turbo diesel vehicles is that it doesn't make much difference to the fuel consumption when you drive them hard, whereas if you get into a boosted petrol vehicle and start using lots of boost on a regular basis fuel burn goes up by a far greater percentage. Even so I am surprised by that petrol consumption and agree it will be interesting to see what other reviewers achieve.
Diesel definitly looks the better option especially with lots more torque and what appears to be the better gearbox but if the vehicle is nothing but a soccer mum's about town runabout, (which many will be) diesel particulate filter blockage problems will follow as surely as night follows day.

[Road_Warrior]

Sounds like they were caning it a fair bit. I think the TDCi variant would be the pick. But this car weighs something like 1600kg...this is the price you pay for shoving everything including the kitchen sink into it and expecting a small engine (bosted or not) to move it efficiently. I too believe that the 2.0 Ecoboost would have been a better proposition in a car of this kerb weight.

[In Focus]

Maybe not entirely relevant... but from experience with mine (1.4L super & turbo-charged engine), the difference in consumption between "normal" or eco driving and going hard is much more than what I was getting in a Focus 2L naturally aspirated motor. In effect, you can have the economy of the 1.4 (or 1.6 in the Kuga) OR the performance of, say, a 2.5L NA motor, but not both at the same time.

In short, as some have suggested above, the journos were doing what they always do on a test: testing the performance to the detriment of economy.

[SumoDog68]

Twincharge was meant to feel like a larger NA engine as it s/charger boosts from idle and then disconnects through electronically controlled clutch and turbo takes over. Now imagine redlining it in first 3 gears s/charger engage/ disengage turbo kick in and out .. I know it works but it adds complexity - I would rather a big two litre in a small car ala original Clio Sport but even Renault are going turbo now...

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I reckon they should fit the 2.0 Ecoboost petrol, the extra torque would probably make the vehicle far more pleasureable to drive and fuel efficient too.

I would agree with that. The 2.0 EcoBoost is available in the US Ford Escape. I don't understand why it isn't fitted to the Kugas sold here.

Likewise, the 1.6 EcoBoost would be a magnificent engine for the Focus, but Ford sticks with the 2.0 N/A engine.

Both are baffling decisions.

[Franco Cozzo]

Boosted engines are also much easier to meet emissions regulations than larger NA engines.

[JG34JA]

Seems puzzling to get such a difference in fuel consumption in the 1.6 Ecoboost Kuga, compared to the 2.0 Ecoboost Falcon, on testing. After all, they are similar weights...

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by NX74205

I would agree with that. The 2.0 EcoBoost is available in the US Ford Escape. I don't understand why it isn't fitted to the Kugas sold here.

Likewise, the 1.6 EcoBoost would be a magnificent engine for the Focus, but Ford sticks with the 2.0 N/A engine.

Both are baffling decisions.

Because they dont sell a 2L Ecoboost in the European Kuga, which is where we get ours from.
Also Thailand dont currently build Ecoboost Focus', which is why we dont get them.

Make sense?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Boosted engines are also much easier to meet emissions regulations than larger NA engines.

That depends on the physical aspects of the engine though.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by EDManual

Small turbo engines are useless for people like me who would always have them floored. Only for your slow a to b type driver.

I guess I used to believe that till I drove the EcoBoost 2.0 Escape and felt it pull hard at low rpm up hills and easily beat other cars.

[jpd80]

In the US, Ford has been very careful not to compare the fuel economy of the 2.5 I-4 with the 1.6 Ecoboost.
I have a hunch that the 2.5 probably gives more linear response but only slightly worse economy...

here you go, Escape 2.5 vs 1.6 EB vs .0 EB:

2.5 I-4 - 22 mpg city & 31 mpg hwy
1.6 EB - 23 mpg city & 33 mpg hwy
2.0 EB - 22 mpg city & 30 mpg hwy

Just my opinion but i doubt most people would see any difference in fuel economy between the three engines....

[Rodge]

Thanks...which brings us back to the diesel which is obviously the way to go for anyone wanting real world efficiency. The extra torque would also make for a far more enjoyable driving experience IMO.

[chevypower]

Actually, I would say the 2.0 EB is the most fun. 2.0 diesel you have low end torque and very good fuel economy, which the 2.0EB also has, but also has a lot more power to go with it. I was able to get over 30mpg on the highway with it. I know the diesel would be a little bit better, but it's not a night and day difference. Though everyone has their own preferences and Ford should be offering all of the options in all markets.

[barra240t]

These should now be at your dealerships or arriving very shortly.

Why not review them for YOURSELF and not take what the media says as 100% correct.

Just got ours and we are very impressed.

[ryeman]

Series 7 GTD Golf will be avbl soon, its out in Europe.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by ryeman

Series 7 GTD Golf will be avbl soon, its out in Europe.

And? Pointless post is pointless.

[BDA074]

Originally Posted by barra240t

These should now be at your dealerships or arriving very shortly.

Why not review them for YOURSELF and not take what the media says as 100% correct.

Just got ours and we are very impressed.

+1

Any photo's?

[XtRmn8]

They are starting to pop up on carsales with some having actual dealer pictures. Drive-away pricing is interesting from state to state, looks like some dealers are advertising full RRP and others are applying a nice discount already.

If the Trend had a camera and front parking sensors it would be a perfect package.

[mik]

I reckon the kick tail gate thing will be a winner, ford should put this on as many of their vehicles as possible, it would be useful even opening a sedan boot or hatch, yes its one of those convenience/lazy features , but it takes one more little task away when loading the vehicle up, could see other areas where this tech could be utilized as well. .
As for the fuel economy , its been my experience that whatever the engine configuration , if the engine is making x amount of horse power it will use the fuel accordingly, ie if if a little engine can make 200 horse power and you use the power it will drink the fuel like any other 200 horse engine, if driven gently it will use fuel accordingly.
Of course weight, gearing, aerodynamics, friction in drive line has a bearing on it, but in the end it comes back to throttle input.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by barra240t

These should now be at your dealerships or arriving very shortly.

Why not review them for YOURSELF and not take what the media says as 100% correct.

Just got ours and we are very impressed.

Agree, only problem is, you cann't really review consumption yourself in a short test run. People do look at these reviews when buying a car to get as much info as possible. I know I did when buying my cars.

Only issue is, if the reviewer is bias towards a certain brand they may drive the car in a certain manner and skew the results.... Which, with the consumption figure stated above is what I think happened...

[ryeman]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

And? Pointless post is pointless.

Not to those who are in to diesels for real world performance !

[Wretched]

Tested fuel consumption figures are not really something people should take seriously.
Driver A will drive the car differently to that of Driver B and therefore the results will be different. It doesn't indicate any bias (straw clutching at best).

Fuel consumption figure are far too complicated to be standardised.
There are far too many variables at play that can affect them (weather, driver, route driven, manual/auto, cruise on/off, etc).

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by ryeman

Series 7 GTD Golf will be avbl soon, its out in Europe.

So the new Golf is an SUV is it