Ford Kuga 2.5 T 200 CV, test drive (part I)

Until I had the chance to test this car, I wondered whether the trend of SUVs would be a passing fad or stick around, and we would be facing a new way of naming a vehicle. After a week of intensive driving, I can say it’s here to stay. It will be a long time before the concept -I say evolve, not change- of the SUV evolves. One only has to understand the great passion many drivers have for this type of vehicle, and the brands’ desire to dominate the market. I hope at least that sports car makers keep building them, because one thing doesn’t rule out the other.

The Ford Kuga inherits the C-Max platform, so its dimensions are very similar. The Kuga, like the rest of SUVs, on the other hand, has a different driving style from ordinary cars because of its high centre of gravity. Despite having a slightly sporty (that is, stiffer) suspension when tackling a bend, a roundabout or similar, it feels different. Not to mention in traffic, when you feel superior and can look down on most of your “fellow commuters”. That said, the safety features it incorporates, together with its elegant design and bold front end, give it an excellent feel both on and off the tarmac.

Engine and performance

We tested the most exclusive version, the 2.5-litre turbocharged petrol, the one that hurts the wallet as soon as you lightly press the accelerator, but also makes you feel like the owner of the road when the wheels receive the maximum 200 CV of power to accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in 8.8 seconds, with a top speed of 202 km/h. Its not inconsiderable torque of 320 Nm, with a rev range from 1,600 to 4,000, makes it feel more like a sports car than a crossover.

If you prefer less power and more restrained consumption, you can opt for the 136 CV 2.0 TDCi version, an engine shared with most of the range Ford, with an average consumption of 6.3 litres per 100 km, from €20,890.

The 5-speed automatic gearbox (there is no manual or 6-speed version) lets the engine deliver its full potential, although at times one misses a 6th gear to reduce consumption at normal motorway speeds. We also noticed that, although the gear change transmits to the engine almost instantly, the display does not, and during hard acceleration we sometimes had to wait 2 to 3 seconds to see the gear we were in. We even noticed that some gear numbers did not appear when the shift was really quick in sequential mode.

The driving feel is really comfortable, with almost non-existent engine noise (it is still a petrol), no vibrations either standing still or on the motorway, and hardly any noticeable bumps on tarmac (we can’t say the same on off-road terrain), with a suspension that, as we’ve said, is slightly sporty (McPherson at the front and deformable trailing-arm rear, both with coil springs and anti-roll bar) yet not uncomfortable. It adapts correctly to any steering movement with barely any body roll, which makes it excellent in on-road handling, compared with the Opel Antara or the Renault Koleos.

As a good car that reaches high speeds, it must have good brakes. Ventilated discs (300 mm at the front and 302 mm at the rear) stop the car, which weighs over 1,650 kilos, without problems in the most demanding situations, and work efficiently on any terrain, aided to a greater or lesser extent by the passive safety technology.

We come to the car’s negative point: its consumption. A turbocharged 2,523 cc engine is not going to consume the same as a diesel, obviously not. But its consumption is genuinely good if we keep a normal pace at the right speed at each moment. It should also be said that automatics always consume a few tenths more per 100 km than manuals (even with a sequential gearbox).

The difference between automatic and sequential is non-existent. At 95 km/h it consumed 8 litres per 100 km, when the official figure is 7.8. We tried raising the speed to 105 km/h and consumption was already excessive: 10.7 litres per 100 km, and at 130 km/h the computer showed 13 litres. Not to mention that during a full-throttle burst in 1st gear, pushing the revs, we saw instantaneous readings of over 60 litres. Bear in mind that in an automatic, the harder you press the accelerator, the more power the engine demands, and it will even downshift to accelerate at its maximum capacity, something that does not happen with a manual.

Off-road capability

Although the Kuga in the version tested comes with 4WD as standard (2WD is not offered), we cannot fully call it a 4×4, basically because it has neither a low-range gearbox nor a differential lock. The traction is the usual one for these cars: rear when the system detects that one of the front wheels is slipping and losing grip, but front-wheel drive under normal conditions. This is always active, and there is no lever or similar that lets you choose it as in the old 4x4s.

Being an automatic, the clutch will not suffer on steep gradients or at low speed, but we will have to keep the brake pedal pressed when going up and down hills, since it has no hill-start assist (the Ford Mondeo did have it) or hill descent control. Ground clearance is 188 millimetres, somewhat low compared with its rivals, but I don’t know whether due to the stiffer suspension or what, the feeling of scraping the ground is less.

We tried switching off all the aids available (stability and traction control), and the car behaves beautifully. It offers security even in the most demanding conditions, and at no point did it feel like it would roll over or lose control. With or without aids, it handles complicated tracks well, and it also has impressive composure on dirt and low-grip surfaces.

Photos | Javi Vicente