408 GT vs CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) Comparison
Car Information
Engine / Motor
/
190 km/h
Dimensions
5
5 Seater
4687
4275 mm
1848
1765 mm
1486
1535 mm
2787
2570 mm
536
240 L
Fuel Economy
/
15.4 Km/L
/
48 L
/
15.4 Km/L
Comfort
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
Interior
Front Row Seats
/
Front Row Seats
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Safety
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
Infotainment
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Transmission
Automatic
/
Chassis & Steering
/
All Wheel Drive
Key Spec
2.0 L - 2.0 L
2.0 L
143 BHP - 215
145 BHP - 148 BHP
Automatic
Automatic
Gasoline
Petrol
TBD
TBD
5 - 5
5 Seater
Exterior
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
Engine
1.6
2.0 L
Gasoline
Gasoline
215
148 BHP
158
/
5500
/
300
192 Nm
2000
/
Technologies
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Comparison of configuration highlights
408 GT
- Power Tailgate
- 360 Degree Camera
- Parking sensor rear
- Parking sensor front
- Lane Following Assist
- Driving Recorder
- Security System
- Parking Sensors - Front and Rear
- ABS
- Lane Departure Warning
- Lane Keeping Assist
CX3 2.0L GT (FWD)
- Parking sensor rear
- Parking sensor front
- ABS
Review Comparison
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Related comparisons
Editor's PickCX3 2.0L GT (FWD)
Expert / Editor Recommendation
Choose 408 GT if you care more about interior space; choose CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) if you care more about power.
Popular Car Comparisons
Q&A
- According to fuel consumption data, 408 GT has a fuel consumption of No data, while CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) has a fuel consumption of 6.49. Therefore, No data is more fuel-efficient.
- In terms of interior space, 408 GT has a wheelbase of 2787, while CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) has a wheelbase of 2570 mm. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, 408 GT, offers more room.
- Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. 408 GT uses No data, while CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) uses All Wheel Drive.