|
Reading a roadtest in Car Magazine I was struck by the huge differences in the economy achieved on test between three very similar cars. Those were the new Ford Kuga, the Peugeot 3008 and the Volvo XC40.
The cars all covered the same route at about the same pace yet the test mpg varied wildly from the Peugeot’s disappointing 34.1 to the Ford’s exceptional 97.5(!), with the Volvo filling the middle ground at (still decent enough) 62.7.
The Peugeot having the lowest consumption can be explained to a degree by it having the lowest electric only range of 21 miles. The difference between the Volvo and Ford is a bit more baffling as they ‘appeared’ to both have the same electric only range (31 miles vs 21 for the 3008). I say appeared because another figure on the stats seemed to imply the Kuga can actually do 44.7 miles on the electric motor(?).
I was also intrigued at the mechanical differences between the three cars. The Peugeot and Volvo both having small petrol engines, a 1.5 3cyl in the XC40 and a 1.6 4cyl in the 3008. The Kuga on the other hand uses an engine a full litre bigger than the Volvo, a 2.5 4cyl. Yet the Kuga had the least power of the three with a combined total of 222bhp, the 3008 had the most with 296bhp and the Volvo on 258bhp.
The Kuga was also, by a big margin, the cheapest on test, £10k less than the XC40, which was in turn a couple of grand less than the 3008. Though these figures are slightly deceiving as the Kuga was in a pretty low spec, where the other two were pretty much top of the range. The Peugeot especially, as it is also available with a less powerful 2wd single motor setup, with about the same power as the Kuga.
The Kuga did win the test, being both the nicest to drive (though it was stated that compared to other Fords, it was a bit dull dynamically), and the roomiest, as well as that very impressive real world mpg. The Peugeot was the most comfortable overall to ride in (the Volvo’s harsh ride letting it down here), but the Volvo did had the nicest cabin (no surprise).
|
