Among the 28 C-SUV 2015–2019, the Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150 ranks 20th of 28 in Combined consumption (6.3 L/100, behind the Bmw X1 xDrive18d), 14th of 26 in Tank range (952 km, behind the Bmw X1 xDrive18d), 26th of 28 in 0–100 km/h (10.3 s, behind the Bmw X2 M35i).
II · GENERATION 2017 → · COMPACT SUV
FordICE
Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150
150 hp, 10,3 s 0-100 : among the 28 C-SUV 2015–2019, the Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150 ranks 20th of 28 in Combined consumption, 14th of 26 in Tank range, 26th of 28 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
Power
150hp
240 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
10.3s
VMax 193 km/h
Cons.
6.3L
/100 km
Tank
60L
Technical identity card
Full specifications Ford Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
| Power | 150 hp |
| Couple | 240 Nm |
| Gearbox | Manuelle 6 rapports Manuelle |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 6.3 L/100km |
| Tank | 60 L |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 10,3 s |
| VMax | 193 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Width | 1,836 mm |
| Height | 1,703 mm |
| Kerb weight | 1,582 kg |
| Cd | 0.34 |
Caralogy Methodology
Performance (0-100, top speed) simulated by the Caralogy physics engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves). Motorway consumption values estimated from the manufacturer WLTP cycle.
See full methodology →Manufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance
Among the 28 C-SUV, the Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150 ranks (in the bottom third) in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.
Caralogy Analysis
Tailored to this vehicle?
Fuel consumption: 6.3 L/100 L/100 (20th of 28 in Combined consumption)
The Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150 consumes 6.3 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Bmw X1 xDrive18d (4.3 L/100).
Tank range: 952 km (14th of 26 in Tank range)
On a full tank, the Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150 covers 952 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1419 km.
Go beyond this analysis
Recalculate everything for your own profile with the three physics simulators that power this page.
Running cost for your profile
Adjust mileage, driving mix and charging type to estimate your annual energy budget.
Launch simulator →Long-distance trip
Simulate any motorway trip: time, charging stops, total cost.
Simulate a trip →Chronos & accélération
0-100, 0-200, courbe de vitesse, positionnement segment.
Voir la performance →Segment positioning
Where the Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150 stands against C-SUV
Comparison across 28 C-SUV marketed between 2015–2019.
Combined consumption20e / 28
6.3 L/100
Min 8.1 L/100 · Kia Sportage 1.6 T-GDi 177 4WDMax 4.3 L/100 · Bmw X1 xDrive18d
Tank range14e / 26
952 km
Min 765 km · Kia Sportage 1.6 T-GDi 177 4WDMax 1 419 km · Bmw X1 xDrive18d
0–100 km/h26e / 28
10,3 s
Min 11,8 s · Nissan Qashqai 1.2 DIG-T 115 XtronicMax 5,0 s · Bmw X2 M35i
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
Q3 Sportback150 hp · 0-100 9.1 s
Q3 SUV150 hp · 0-100 9.1 s
X1 sDrive18i140 hp · 0-100 9.7 s
X2 sDrive18i140 hp · 0-100 9.6 s
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
Compare
Popular duels involving the Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150
Frequently asked questions
Ford Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
952 km on a full tank (6.3 L/100 on the combined cycle) — 14th of 26 in autonomie du segment.
Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.
The Bmw X1 xDrive18d leads in Combined consumption (4.3 L/100 vs 6.3 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150 vs Bmw X1 xDrive18d duel for a detailed comparison.
Caralogy does not reproduce manufacturer figures: we recalculate every number through physics simulation, starting from SCx, mass and the power curve. This is why our figures at 130 km/h differ from WLTP. Full methodology on the dedicated page.