CS95 ROYAL vs RX Comfort 2.0T Comparison
Car Information
Engine / Motor
/
185 km/h
/
4
/
1998 cc
/
Chinese
Dimensions
7
5 Seater
4949
4781 mm
1930
1920 mm
1790
1671 mm
2810
2815 mm
/
5 Doors
/
500 L
/
187 m
Fuel Economy
10.5
16 Km/L
74
50 L
/
16 Km/L
Comfort
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Smart Entry
/
✓
Interior
Front Row Seats
/
12.3"
/
Front Row Seats
/
Driver Seat
/
Driver Seat
/
Leather
Leather
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Digital
/
Dual Zone
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Electric
/
✓
/
✓
/
Standard
Safety
✓
/
6
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Infotainment
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
10+Amplifier
8
/
12.3
/
✓
/
✓
/
Android LCD
Transmission
8-Speed Automatic
/
Chassis & Steering
Four-Wheel Drive
Front Wheel Drive
Wheels/brakes
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
245 / 55 R19
/
245 / 55 R19
/
Key Spec
2.0 L - 2.0 L
2.0 L - 2.0 L
233 - 233
245 HP - 261 BHP
8-Speed Automatic & Automatic
7DCT & 8AT & Automatic
Gasoline & Petrol
Gasoline
TBD
TBD
7 - 7
5 - 5
Exterior
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
LED
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Engine
2.0 T
2.0 L
Gasoline
Gasoline
233
261 BHP
390
400 Nm
/
In-Line
/
Twin Turbo
/
4
Technologies
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Sport, Snow, Eco
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Comparison of configuration highlights
CS95 ROYAL
- Power Tailgate
- 360 Degree Camera
- Keyless Entry
- Keyless Start
- Emergency Lane Keeping (ELK）
- Number of Airbags
- Collision Detection
- Blind Spot Warning
- ABS
- EBD/CBC
- EBA/BA
- Traction Control System (TCS / ASR, etc.)
- Vehicle Stability System (ESP/DSC, etc.)
- Lane Departure Warning
- Lane Keeping Assist
RX Comfort 2.0T
- Electronic engine immobilizer
- Power Tailgate
- 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
Expert / Editor Recommendation
Choose CS95 ROYAL if you care more about price; choose RX Comfort 2.0T if you care more about fuel economy.
Popular Car Comparisons
Q&A
- According to fuel consumption data, CS95 ROYAL has a fuel consumption of 9.52, while RX Comfort 2.0T has a fuel consumption of 6.25. Therefore, RX Comfort 2.0T is more fuel-efficient.
- In terms of interior space, CS95 ROYAL has a wheelbase of 2810, while RX Comfort 2.0T has a wheelbase of 2815 mm. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, RX Comfort 2.0T, offers more room.
- Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. CS95 ROYAL uses Four-Wheel Drive, while RX Comfort 2.0T uses Front Wheel Drive.