RX9 LUX 4WD vs 300 Challenger 2.0T Comparison
Review Comparison
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Positive
- Robust and distinctive exterior design
- High off road driving capabilities
- Advanced technology and comprehensive security systems
Negative
- Relatively high fuel consumption
- Limited interior space for rear seats
- Less efficient performance on highways
Price Comparison
SAR 144205
SAR 149327
SAR 138725
SAR 143635
SAR 1941
SAR 2010
Fuel Consumption Comparison
0.07 L/KM
0.1 L/KM
Daily Fule Payment
SAR 10.08
Daily Fule Payment
SAR 14.4
Weekly Fule Payment
SAR 70.56
Weekly Fule Payment
SAR 100.8
Monthly Fule Payment
SAR 282.24
Monthly Fule Payment
SAR 403.2
Yearly Fule Payment
SAR 3679.2
Yearly Fule Payment
SAR 5256
Hide common specs
Car Information
Engine / Motor
/
200 km/h
/
4
/
1998 cc
/
Chinese
Dimensions
7
5 Seater
21
/
4983
4760 mm
1967
1930 mm
1786
1927 mm
2915
2750 mm
/
5 Doors
/
400 L
/
224 m
Fuel Economy
14.8
10 Km/L
70
75 L
/
10 Km/L
Comfort
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Keyless Entry
/
✓
Interior
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
/
Leather
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
Digital
/
Dual Zone
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Electric
/
✓
/
✓
/
Standard
Safety
3
/
✓
/
255/45 R21
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Infotainment
12.3
12.3
12
9
Bose
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Android LCD
/
✓
Transmission
9-Speed Automatic
Automatic
Chassis & Steering
Four-Wheel Drive
Four Wheel Drive
MacPhersan
/
Multi-link
/
Wheels/brakes
✓
/
✓
/
255/45 R21
/
255/45 R21
/
Exterior
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
LED
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Engine
2.0 L
2.0 L
Gasoline
Gasoline
235 BHP
224 BHP
350
387 Nm
/
In-Line
/
Single Turbo
/
4
Technologies
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
