Cityray GC vs 300 Challenger 2.0T Comparison
Car Information
/
SUVEngine / Motor
/
200 km/h
/
4
/
1998 cc
/
Chinese
Dimensions
5
5 Seater
18
/
4510
4760 mm
1865
1930 mm
1650
1927 mm
2701
2750 mm
/
5 Doors
/
400 L
/
224 m
Fuel Economy
/
10 Km/L
/
75 L
/
10 Km/L
Comfort
Drive Door
/
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Keyless Entry
/
✓
Interior
10.2
/
Leather
Leather
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Digital
/
Dual Zone
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Electric
/
✓
/
✓
/
Standard
Safety
2
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Infotainment
13.2
12.3
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
4
9
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Android LCD
Transmission
7 DCT
Automatic
Chassis & Steering
/
Four Wheel Drive
Key Spec
1.5
2.0 L
174
223 BHP - 342 BHP
7 DCT
Automatic
Gasoline
Gasoline & Hybrid
TBD
TBD
5
5 Seater
Exterior
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
LED
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Engine
1.5
2.0 L
Gasoline
Gasoline
174
224 BHP
290
387 Nm
/
In-Line
/
Single Turbo
/
4
Technologies
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
Comparison of configuration highlights
Cityray GC
- Keyless Entry
- Parking sensor rear
- Number of Airbags
- ABS
- EBD/CBC
- EBA/BA
- Traction Control System (TCS / ASR, etc.)
- Vehicle Stability System (ESP/DSC, etc.)
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
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Related comparisons
Editor's PickCityray GC
Expert / Editor Recommendation
Choose Cityray GC if you care more about price; choose 300 Challenger 2.0T if you care more about interior space.
Popular Car Comparisons
Q&A
- According to fuel consumption data, Cityray GC has a fuel consumption of No data, while 300 Challenger 2.0T has a fuel consumption of 10. Therefore, No data is more fuel-efficient.
- In terms of interior space, Cityray GC has a wheelbase of 2701, 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. Cityray GC uses No data, while 300 Challenger 2.0T uses Four Wheel Drive.