CarteaCompare CarsCullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP) vs Urus S 4.0T V8

Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP) vs Urus S 4.0T V8 Comparison

Car Information

Engine / Motor

250 km/h

305 km/h

/

8

/

3996 cc

Dimensions

5 Seater

4 Seater

5 Doors

5 Doors

5341 mm

5123 mm

2164 mm

2022 mm

1835 mm

1638 mm

3295 mm

3003 mm

600 L

617 L

/

172 m

Fuel Economy

6.7 Km/L

7 Km/L

6.7 Km/L

7 Km/L

/

75 L

Comfort

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

Smart Entry

/

Interior

/

/

/

/

Leather

/

Digital

/

4-Zone

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

Electric

/

/

/

Bucket

Safety

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

Infotainment

/

10.1

/

/

/

/

Android LCD

/

/

8

Chassis & Steering

All Wheel Drive

All Wheel Drive

Key Spec

6.7 L

4.0 L

563 BHP

650 BHP - 800 BHP

Automatic

Automatic

Gasoline & Petrol

Gasoline & Hybrid & Petrol

TBD

TBD

5 Seater

4 Seater

Exterior

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

LED

/

/

/

/

Engine

6.7 L

4.0 L

Gasoline

Gasoline

563 BHP

666 BHP

850 Nm

850 Nm

/

V

/

Twin Turbo

/

4

Technologies

/

/

/

/

Comparison of configuration highlights

  • Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP)

    • Rear Camera
  • Urus S 4.0T V8

    • 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
    • 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

  • Outstanding sports performance with a powerful engine.
  • Unique and eye catching exterior design.
  • A luxurious interior with advanced technological equipment.

Negative

  • The cost of purchase and maintenance is high.
  • High fuel consumption and poor environmental considerations.
  • Limited comfort while driving long distances.

Related comparisons

Editor's PickUrus S 4.0T V8

Expert / Editor Recommendation

Choose Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP) if you care more about interior space; choose Urus S 4.0T V8 if you care more about price.

Popular Car Comparisons

Rolls Royce | Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP)

VS

Tank | 500 Elite Urban

Rolls Royce | Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP)

VS

Rolls Royce | Rolls-Royce Cullinan 2024 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP)

Rolls Royce | Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP)

VS

Rolls Royce | Rolls-Royce Cullinan 2023 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP)

Rolls Royce | Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP)

VS

Bentley | Bentley Bentayga 2020 6.0L W12 Mulliner

Rolls Royce | Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP)

VS

Bentley | Bentley Bentayga 2019 6.0L W12 Mulliner

Q&A

  • According to fuel consumption data, Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP) has a fuel consumption of 14.93, while Urus S 4.0T V8 has a fuel consumption of 14.29. Therefore, Urus S 4.0T V8 is more fuel-efficient.
  • In terms of interior space, Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP) has a wheelbase of 3295 mm, while Urus S 4.0T V8 has a wheelbase of 3003 mm. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP), offers more room.
  • Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. Cullinan 6.75L Twin-Turbo (563 HP) uses All Wheel Drive, while Urus S 4.0T V8 uses All Wheel Drive.