CarteaCompare CarsASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option vs 300 Challenger 2.0T

ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option vs 300 Challenger 2.0T Comparison

Car Information

Engine / Motor

193 km/h

200 km/h

/

4

/

1998 cc

/

Chinese

Dimensions

5 Seater

5 Seater

4355 mm

4760 mm

1810 mm

1930 mm

1625 mm

1927 mm

2670 mm

2750 mm

358 L

400 L

/

5 Doors

/

224 m

Fuel Economy

12.5 Km/L

10 Km/L

63 L

75 L

12.5 Km/L

10 Km/L

Comfort

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

Keyless Entry

/

Interior

/

/

/

/

Leather

/

Digital

/

Dual Zone

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

Electric

/

/

/

Standard

Safety

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

Infotainment

/

12.3

/

/

/

/

Android LCD

/

/

9

Transmission

/

Automatic

Chassis & Steering

Front Wheel Drive

Four Wheel Drive

Key Spec

2.0 L

2.0 L

150 BHP

217 BHP - 224 BHP

Automatic & CVT

Automatic

Gasoline & Petrol

Gasoline

TBD

TBD

5 Seater

5 Seater

Exterior

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

LED

/

/

/

/

Engine

2.0 L

2.0 L

Gasoline

Gasoline

150 BHP

224 BHP

197 Nm

387 Nm

/

In-Line

/

Single Turbo

/

4

Technologies

/

/

/

/

Comparison of configuration highlights

  • ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option

    • Parking sensor rear
    • Parking sensor front
    • Rear Camera
    • ABS
  • 300 Challenger 2.0T

    • Electronic engine immobilizer
    • 360 Degree camera
    • Rear Defogger
    • Rear Power Outlet
    • Heated Side Mirrors
    • Parking sensor rear
    • Parking sensor front
    • Keyless Start
    • Heater
    • Rear Camera
    • Headlight On Reminder
    • Remote key types
    • Steering Adjustment
    • Anti-Theft Alarm System
    • Speed Sensing Auto Door Lock
    • Driver Seat Belt Warning
    • ABS
    • EBD/CBC
    • EBA/BA
    • Passive Pedestrian Protection
    • Child Lock
    • Speed Alert
    • Active braking

Review Comparison

Positive

  • Attractive and striking exterior design
  • Economical fuel consumption
  • Reliable and consistent performance

Negative

  • The space of the rear seats is limited
  • The infotainment system is outdated
  • Limited engine choices

Positive

  • No data found

Negative

  • No data found

Related comparisons

Editor's PickASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option

Expert / Editor Recommendation

Choose ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option if you care more about price; choose 300 Challenger 2.0T if you care more about interior space.

Popular Car Comparisons

Mitsubishi | ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option

VS

Haval | Haval Jolion 2023 1.5T Active Plus

Mitsubishi | ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option

VS

Hyundai | Hyundai Santa Fe 2018 2.4L FWD

Mitsubishi | ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option

VS

MG | MG HS 2020 2.0T Comfort

Mitsubishi | ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option

VS

MG | RX5 1.5T STD

Mitsubishi | ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option

VS

MG | HS 1.5 DCT DEL

Q&A

  • According to fuel consumption data, ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option has a fuel consumption of 8, while 300 Challenger 2.0T has a fuel consumption of 10. Therefore, ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option is more fuel-efficient.
  • In terms of interior space, ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option has a wheelbase of 2670 mm, while 300 Challenger 2.0T has a wheelbase of 2750 mm. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, 300 Challenger 2.0T, offers more room.
  • Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. ASX 2.0L GLX (2WD) Mid Option uses Front Wheel Drive, while 300 Challenger 2.0T uses Four Wheel Drive.