Urban Cruiser GL vs MG HS 2020 2.0T Comfort Comparison
Review Comparison
Positive
- Stylish exterior design meets the taste of youth
- Economical fuel consumption suitable for daily commuting
- Reliable service network and rich security features
Negative
- The engine performance is average, especially at high speeds
- Limited back row space for large families
- The entertainment and control system is simple compared to competitors
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Price Comparison
SAR 86183
SAR 88183
SAR 82915
SAR 84812
SAR 1160
SAR 1187
Fuel Consumption Comparison
0.05 L/KM
0.08 L/KM
Daily Fule Payment
SAR 7.35
Daily Fule Payment
SAR 11.76
Weekly Fule Payment
SAR 51.45
Weekly Fule Payment
SAR 82.32
Monthly Fule Payment
SAR 220.5
Monthly Fule Payment
SAR 352.8
Yearly Fule Payment
SAR 2682.75
Yearly Fule Payment
SAR 4292.4
Hide common specs
Car Information
/
Engine / Motor
4
4
/
210
Dimensions
5 Seater
5 Seater
17
/
4365
4.574
1795
1.876
1645
1.685
2600
2.720
210
/
/
463
Fuel Economy
19.8
12.2
45 L
55
Comfort
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
Keyless Entry
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Interior
7
/
✓
/
Fabric
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
Rear
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Safety
✓
✓
Driver And Front Passenger + Side + Curtain
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Infotainment
9
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
4
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Transmission
✓
/
6 Speed Automatic Transmission
Automatic
/
✓
Chassis & Steering
Front Wheel Drive
Front Wheel Drive
Wheels/brakes
215/60 R17
/
215/60 R17
/
/
✓
Exterior
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
LED
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Engine
1.5 L
2.0 L
Gasoline
Petrol
101 BHP
231 BHP
135
360
Technologies
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
.png?x-oss-process=image/format,webp/interlace,1/quality,q_70/resize,w_750)
.png?x-oss-process=image/format,webp/interlace,1/quality,q_70/resize,w_750)
