Tahoe LT 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 260040
SAR 149327
SAR 250200
SAR 143635
SAR 3500
SAR 2010
Fuel Consumption Comparison
0.1 L/KM
0.1 L/KM
Daily Fule Payment
SAR 11.65
Daily Fule Payment
SAR 11.65
Weekly Fule Payment
SAR 81.55
Weekly Fule Payment
SAR 81.55
Monthly Fule Payment
SAR 361.15
Monthly Fule Payment
SAR 361.15
Yearly Fule Payment
SAR 4252.25
Yearly Fule Payment
SAR 4252.25
Hide common specs
Car Information
Engine / Motor
180 km/h
200 km/h
/
4
/
1998 cc
/
Chinese
Dimensions
7 Seater
5 Seater
18
/
5 Doors
5 Doors
5181
4760 mm
2053
1930 mm
1925
1927 mm
3071
2750 mm
3479
400 L
/
224 m
Fuel Economy
9.7
10 Km/L
100
75 L
/
10 Km/L
Comfort
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Smart Key
Keyless Entry
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Interior
10.2
/
Gideon/Dark Atmosphere premium cloth
Leather
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Digital
/
Dual Zone
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Electric
/
✓
/
✓
/
Standard
Safety
✓
✓
frontal airbags for driver and front outboard passenger; seat-mounted side-impact airbags for driver and front outboard passenger; driver inboard seat-mounted side-impact airbag; headcurtain airbags for all rows in outboard seating positions3,4
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Infotainment
8
12.3
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Android LCD
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
9
Transmission
AT
/
10
/
10AT
Automatic
Chassis & Steering
Four-Wheel Drive
Four Wheel Drive
Exterior
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
LED
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Engine
5.3 L
2.0 L
Gasoline
Gasoline
355 BHP
224 BHP
518
387 Nm
/
In-Line
/
Single Turbo
/
4
Technologies
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
