e-2008 GT vs CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) Comparison
Car Information
Engine / Motor
150
190 km/h
Dimensions
5
5 Seater
4300
4275 mm
1987
1765 mm
1550
1535 mm
2605
2570 mm
343
240 L
Fuel Economy
/
15.4 Km/L
/
48 L
/
15.4 Km/L
Comfort
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
Interior
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Safety
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
Infotainment
10
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Transmission
AT
/
Chassis & Steering
Front Drive
All Wheel Drive
Wheels/brakes
✓
/
Key Spec
0.0 L - 1199 L
2.0 L - 2.0 L
110 BHP - 155 BHP
145 BHP - 148 BHP
AT & Automatic
6 Speed SkyActiv with Sports Mode & Automatic
Diesel & Electric & Gasoline & Petrol
Gasoline & Petrol
TBD
TBD
5 - 5
5 - 5
Exterior
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
Engine
/
2.0 L
Electric
Gasoline
136 BHP
148 BHP
260
192 Nm
Motor
Single
/
Technologies
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Comparison of configuration highlights
e-2008 GT
- Electronic Engine Immobilizer
- Power Tailgate
- 360 Degree Camera
- Rear Camera
- Anti-Theft Alarm System
- Collision Detection
- Speed Limiter
- EBD (Electronic Brakeforce Distribution)
- ABS
- Traction Control System (TCS / ASR, etc.)
- Active braking
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 e-2008 GT if you care more about interior space; choose CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) if you care more about price.
Popular Car Comparisons
Q&A
- According to fuel consumption data, e-2008 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, e-2008 GT has a wheelbase of 2605, while CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) has a wheelbase of 2570 mm. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, e-2008 GT, offers more room.
- Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. e-2008 GT uses Front Drive, while CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) uses All Wheel Drive.