Practical and good to drive, with all the added benefits of an SUV.

What is it?

Ford calls it a cross-over, we’d call it a compact four-wheel drive. Either way the Kuga is a handsome, tall family wagon that looks a cut above your mundane estate, allows you to look down on the world from loftier seats, offers decent room and majors on a fine driving experience.

And it does provide four-wheel drive, although the electronically-controlled Haldex clutch usually sends more than 95 per cent of the engine’s torque to the front wheels, the rear axle playing a greater role only when needed.

There’s no use of the brakes to limit wheelspin either - Ford considers this potentially counter-productive if all four wheels are on a slippery surface - and nor is there hill-descent control.

So the message is clear - the Kuga is all about on-road driving, but it will drag a boat and trailer up a seaweed-slathered slipway, and it will be that bit more secure in treacherous road conditions, too.

The guts of this car are derived from the Focus family component set, but the bodyshell and most of the interior are entirely new. Only one engine is available at launch, a 134bhp 2.0 TDCi diesel and six-speed, although a197bhp 2.2-litre five cylinder petrol will appear later in the year. Expect a 2.2-litre diesel eventually as well.

What’s it like?

Largely as you’d expect a Focus-derived SUV to be, really, though its dynamics are better than might be anticipated given the challenges of making a tall, relatively heavy vehicle of this kind athletic.

It’s particularly impressive for its fuss-free agility, direct steering, lack of roll and the relatively high speeds you can reach before understeer sets in, or would if the ESP was disengaged.

Despite the need to be pretty firmly suspended to achieve such a deft way with bends it rides comfortably too, though sharper bumps are more likely to be well rounded-off rather than fully absorbed. The bodyshell feels impressively robust over rutted tracks and the suspension operates with impressive quiet, too.


Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

Back to top

Do not, however, expect this taller car to handle exactly like a Focus - its capable, but less physically engaging than the lower-slung hatch, as you’d expect.

The 2.0 TDCi serves performance that’s typical for the class, being brisk rather than rapid and arriving at 62mph in 10.7sec. So you’ll sometimes need to stir the six-speeder for pacey progress, its wide gate demanding fairly deliberate movements.

We sampled three diesel Kugas and all sounded a little different, the best of them pretty civilised even if the oil-burner’s clatter never completely subsides. The other two, almost certainly sub-standard because they were pre-production, were too obtrusive, as was the wind noise coming from the screen area in all three.

Other plus-points are plentiful, and start with the lowest CO2 emissions in the class at 169g/km. Besides this are rear seats that fold easily, the two-piece tailgate, an exceptionally large glovebox and a decent centre cubby complete with auxiliary socket and an optional USB port.

An optional and very large panoramic glass roof is a very welcome addition, as are bump-absorbent plastic front wings, an optional 240-volt power socket, shopping bag hooks in the boot, picnic trays in the rear for the Titanium and a padded depression in the front door tops for tired elbows.

Should I buy one?

If a practical SUV is what you need, then the Kuga should be on your shortlist. Its chassis stands a good chance of out-pointing the current best-in-class Honda CR-V - also a surprisingly good drive - and the Ford is decidedly better looking too.

Overall, this is a well-polished effort from Ford that’s high on visual appeal, practical detail design and enjoyable manners. It certainly doesn’t redefine the class, but it’s a front-runner.

Join the debate



9 April 2008

Would you mind keeping your views on esthetics for yourself?

Personally I find the Kuga looking just as bad as the Focus, Mondeo, Galaxy and S-max (which is rather logical, given their identical style). That said, I like the CR-V's looks quite a lot.

Why is it that you journalists cannot seem to stick to your jobs: describing the technics and driving characteristics? People can decide for themselves which car they find betterlooking or which driving characteristics they personally prefer. At least, I can.

9 April 2008

That's complete nonsense. The journalist's job is to provide an opinion on the car as a whole. Being an opinion, this may well differ from one journalist to another!

You can disagree with the review, but suggesting that journalists shouldn't discuss a car's looks is complete tosh.


9 April 2008

Of course, Niall Oswald, I do not agree with you at all.

A journalist is writing about an object and should limit himself to it's objective qualities, both positive and negative.

Valuations of looks are not obejctive, but subjective by definition. Hence a journalist should not express any opinion on the matter. And most certainly not in a sense as "decidedly better". If a journalist deems it necessary to express his/her opinion on the looks of a car, he/sh should at least add to it something like "Personally, I think that...".

9 April 2008

[quote nh]

A journalist is writing about an object and should limit himself to it's objective qualities, both positive and negative.


I am not sure where you get this from, but in every respect you are wrong.

Just about every aspect of reviewing a car is subjective. From the way it drives, to the way it looks. If that were not the case, every review of a given car would be the same. They aren't. The reason is because it is a subjective view.

I would argue that the term "objective qualities" is an oxymoron as the "qualities" of a car are purely subjective.

A good journalist will express their opinons in an interesting, imformative and (hopefully) humerous way. The 'objective' facts will be presented in a table, not in the text of the article.

If you are unhappy with the way articles like this are written, I would respectfully suggest that you restrict your reading to the 'Technical Specification' at the back of the manufacturers brochure.

11 April 2008

The reality is that very little of what a journalist writes is objective, because they are commenting on how they feel a particular car matches their (and occasionally the customers) expectations.

Declaring a car to be ugly is no different to declaring the steering weight to be heavy, the ride character to be sporty or the responses to be slow - it is all based on personal preference. Taken to it's extreme, it does matter what the journalist thinks about a vehicle unless through familiarity, you share the same preference for what you want a vehicle to be.

Even stating that a vehicle handles badly can well be objectively incorrect -if the change in steering weight felt unrelated to the change in tyre load it would feel like it handled badly, even if the vehicle response was actually linear, predictable and appropriate.

Before drawing any conclusions from a journalists report, just remember Caveat emptor! You may have an entirely different and justified view if the car - and as you'll be driving it, that's all that matters!

30 January 2009

How disappointing. I thought I might read some intelligent comments about the Ford Kuga - not some opinionated and pointless remarks about the reviewer and his style of writing. I like the look of this Kuga, especially in white. It ticks all the boxes for me and have booked a test drive. Ford are producing some excellent cars right now and seem to have a hit on their hands in virtually every sector. Fantastic achievement!

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week