Ford kuga 2L 163bhp

[Beehpee]

I’m not towing the 1800kg the OP quoted, caravan paperwork in caravan at storage yard but if I remember the Rimini is best part of 1500 kg

 

[RogerL]

Looking at the V5 for my Kuga the weights printed are revenue weight 2250 kg gross, max permissible 2250 , mass in service 1773, permissible max towable mass 2100 kg braked, which of these is what has been referred to as kerb weight I haven’t a clue, the max towable I’d have thought was what was important, mine is 2litre 180 BHP 4 wheel drive, hope this might be of use

Mass in service is close to kerbweight but not the same - the max towable mass covers all types of trailers, not specifically caravans.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Looking at the V5 for my Kuga the weights printed are revenue weight 2250 kg gross, max permissible 2250 , mass in service 1773, permissible max towable mass 2100 kg braked, which of these is what has been referred to as kerb weight I haven’t a clue, the max towable I’d have thought was what was important, mine is 2litre 180 BHP 4 wheel drive, hope this might be of use

None of them are Kerbweight. You will not find Kerbweight on your V5, as it not a required figure.

As Roger l suggests, Mass In Service is as close as you will get to Kerbweight, but it's not exactly the same. Normally MIS is smaller than KB, but difference is not a consistent value or multiplier .

 

[Buckman]

None of them are Kerbweight. You will not find Kerbweight on your V5, as it not a required figure.

As Roger l suggests, Mass In Service is as close as you will get to Kerbweight, but it's not exactly the same. Normally MIS is smaller than KB, but difference is not a consistent value or multiplier .

Isn't kerbweight the vehicle with no driver and no liquids i.e. fuel and MIS or MIRO with a driver and liquid i.e. fuel?

 

[Raywood]

The mass in service should be the kerb weight although if it does not include the driver you can add 75 kg.

 

[Beehpee]

Just put details in CAMHC matching site and shows my Kuga has kerb weight 1692 kg and the match with the Rimini we have recently purchased is just about a perfect match, so as previously said by others the Kuga would be too light for towing an 1800 kg caravan, nice to see the matching service states good match which I already thought it was a good match from the way it towed, the Rimini also has ATC so that gives a bit of peace mind extra.

BP

 

[Buckman]

Just put details in CAMHC matching site and shows my Kuga has kerb weight 1692 kg and the match with the Rimini we have recently purchased is just about a perfect match, so as previously said by others the Kuga would be too light for towing an 1800 kg caravan, nice to see the matching service states good match which I already thought it was a good match from the way it towed, the Rimini also has ATC so that gives a bit of peace mind extra.

BP

BTW the CMC is not always correct as it is way out with weights for our Jeep Grand Cherokee as it had the incorrect kerbweight and was out by nearly 200kg. Also inaccurate on nose weight calculation. However in this case the Kuga although capable to towing 2100kg is too light for a 1800kg caravan. More than likely the weight of any luggage and passengers inside the vehicle needs to be taken off the towing weight.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Isn't kerbweight the vehicle with no driver and no liquids i.e. fuel and MIS or MIRO with a driver and liquid i.e. fuel?

That depends on which definition of kerbweight you use. So the answer is not necessarily,

 

[Dustydog]

Ray’s response is still accurate today imo

 

[Icaru5]

Due to past experience, I would recommend driving a 163 befor you take the plunge.

Several years ago, I ordered a new company car. At around that time (2011), I had driven a few rental 2.0 TDCI Mondeos in 140BHP guise and they all went very well. When it came to ordering mine, they had just introduced another engine option in the Mondeo Titanium, in addition to the 140, they had a 163. Must be even better I thought and so I ticked that box.

I hadn’t got more than 2 miles away from the dealer on collection day and my heart sank as I realised just how wrong as was. The car was absolutely gutless. So much so, I was back and to to the dealer for what must have been almost 12 months, certain that there was a major problem with it. It took them almost 12 months to (allegedly) to find another one that I could compare back to back and low and behold, that was just the same.

It was all a play on numbers, If I remember correctly, the 163 had exactly the same fuel consumption figures as the 140 yet had a higher “max” power output. Max being the key word. At a time where most Turbo-Diesels would scrabble for grip in 1st from around 1200RPM, this thing felt like you were trying to pull away in second.

After a quick glance at a published torque curve plot of Another Moneed with the same engine, measured on a dyno and published by a reputable tuning company showed exactly why the car was as gutless as it was. I had never, and have still never seen a turbo-diesel engine produce such a progressive torque curve below 2500RPM. Oddly enough, whilst they were able to offer a custom remap to increase maximum torque and power, they were unable to do very much at all with the abysmal low-down response, despite the engine being rumoured to be exactly the same as the 140 but with a different map.

Since to the best of my knowledge, it was the same engine as a 140, I asked several times for the supplying local dealer to remap it as a 140, but they insisted that they couldn’t. No surprise there.

Fortunately, we had a new employee join the company shortly after, and so I offloaded it on to him and ordered a new Passat Sport , and have been a VW fan ever since !

Obviously, we’re 9 years down the road now, and I’m not sure if the OP mentioned whether they were looking at new or used. I really have no idea if the 163PS 2.0 Turbo Diesel that they are fitting to the Kuga is even the same engine as the one I had in my Mondeo, but in any case, it prompted me to post as the combination of the number 163 and the name Ford still gives me nightmares !

Given the changes in emissions regulations since then, even if it is the same engine, then I would imagine that the engine map would be significantly different anyway, but I would still strongly recommend driving the exact same model, with the exact same engine before making a decision,

Hope this helps !

Ic.