Qin Plus FWD vs EMPOW GL Comparison
Review Comparison
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Positive
- Dynamic and attractive design
- Powerful performance and high efficiency
- Provides advanced technologies and comprehensive security
Negative
- Limited storage space at the back
- Infotainment interface needs minor improvements
- Rear seats may be cramped for some passengers
Price Comparison
SAR 94500
SAR 99405
SAR 90900
SAR 95623
SAR 1272
SAR 1338
Fuel Consumption Comparison
0.04 L/KM
0.06 L/KM
Daily Fule Payment
SAR 4.66
Daily Fule Payment
SAR 6.99
Weekly Fule Payment
SAR 32.62
Weekly Fule Payment
SAR 48.93
Monthly Fule Payment
SAR 144.46
Monthly Fule Payment
SAR 216.69
Yearly Fule Payment
SAR 1700.9
Yearly Fule Payment
SAR 2551.35
Hide common specs
Car Information
Engine / Motor
185
/
Dimensions
Flush Door
/
5
5 Seater
1500
/
17
18
4
/
4765
4700
1837
1850
1495
1432
2720
2730
500
/
Fuel Economy
26
18
48
47
Comfort
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Interior
8.8
/
LCD
7 Inch
Front Row Seats
/
Sensatec Leather
/
✓
/
Dual
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
/
Driver Seat
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Safety
Driver's and Passenger airbags, Front-row side airbag
6
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
✓
Front Row
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Infotainment
10.1-inch rotating screen
10.25 Inch
✓
/
✓
✓
6
8
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Battery/Charging
6.6
/
Transmission
Automatic
7-Speed DCT
Chassis & Steering
Front Drive
/
MacPherson
McPherson independent Suspension
Torsion Beam
Multi-link Beam Independent Suspension
Wheels/brakes
Ventilated Disc
/
Disc
/
215/55 R17
225/45 R18
215/55 R17
225/45 R18
/
✓
/
✓
Exterior
Manual
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Engine
1.5 L
1.5 L
Hybrid
Gasoline
Plug in Hybrid
/
197 BHP
170 BHP
325
/
Motor
145
/
325
/
1
/
Lithium iron phosphate battery
/
Technologies
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
Sport, Ordinary, Economical
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
.png?x-oss-process=image/format,webp/interlace,1/quality,q_70/resize,w_750)
