E300 3.0L vs C 63 AMG Comparison
Car Information
Engine / Motor
260 km/h
/
4
/
2998 cc
/
GCC
/
Dimensions
5 Seater
/
4 Doors
/
4949 mm
/
1880 mm
/
1480 mm
/
2961 mm
/
540 L
/
Fuel Economy
9 Km/L
/
66 L
/
9 Km/L
/
Comfort
✓
/
Interior
✓
/
Digital
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Infotainment
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Transmission
Automatic
/
Chassis & Steering
All Wheel Drive
/
Key Spec
2.0 L - 3.0 L
2.0 L - 2.0 L
204 BHP - 402
204 BHP - 451 BHP
7-speed Automatic (7G-TRONIC Plus) & 9-speed automatic & Automatic
9-speed Automatic & 9-speed automatic
Petrol & Diesel & Gasoline & Hybrid & Petrol
Petrol & Gasoline
TBD
TBD
4 Seater - 5 Seater
4 Seater - 5 Seater
Exterior
✓
/
Engine
In-Line
/
3.0 L
/
Gasoline
/
Single Turbo
/
4
/
285 BHP
/
420 Nm
/
Comparison of configuration highlights
E300 3.0L
- Remote key types
C 63 AMG
Review Comparison
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Related comparisons
Editor's PickC 63 AMG
Expert / Editor Recommendation
Choose E300 3.0L if you care more about overall equipment; choose C 63 AMG if you care more about price.
Popular Car Comparisons
Q&A
- According to fuel consumption data, E300 3.0L has a fuel consumption of 11.11, while C 63 AMG has a fuel consumption of No data. Therefore, No data is more fuel-efficient.
- In terms of interior space, E300 3.0L has a wheelbase of 2961 mm, while C 63 AMG has a wheelbase of No data. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, No data, offers more room.
- Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. E300 3.0L uses All Wheel Drive, while C 63 AMG uses No data.