EQE 53 AMG SUV 4MATIC vs Duster 1.6L PE (4x2) Comparison
Car Information
Engine / Motor
240 km/h
161 km/h
GCC
/
Dimensions
5 Seater
5 Seater
5 Doors
/
4863 mm
4341 mm
2141 mm
1804 mm
1685 mm
1693 mm
3030 mm
2676 mm
520 L
414 L
Fuel Economy
/
17.2 Km/L
/
50 L
/
17.2 Km/L
Comfort
✓
/
Interior
✓
/
Digital
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Safety
/
✓
Infotainment
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Transmission
Automatic
/
Chassis & Steering
All Wheel Drive
Front Wheel Drive
Key Spec
TBD
/
288 - 628 BHP
105 BHP - 135 BHP
Automatic & Single-speed AT & Single-speed automatic & Single-speed automatic (EV)
Automatic & CVT & Manual
Electric
Gasoline & Petrol
410 km
/
5 - 5
5 - 5
/
1.6 L - 2.0 L
/
TBD
Exterior
✓
/
Engine
Electric
Gasoline
628 BHP
115 BHP
1000 Nm
156 Nm
/
1.6 L
Motor
8
/
options.Lithium
/
460 kW
/
Comparison of configuration highlights
EQE 53 AMG SUV 4MATIC
- Remote key types
Duster 1.6L PE (4x2)
- ABS
Review Comparison
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Related comparisons
Editor's PickDuster 1.6L PE (4x2)
Expert / Editor Recommendation
Choose EQE 53 AMG SUV 4MATIC if you care more about interior space; choose Duster 1.6L PE (4x2) if you care more about price.
Popular Car Comparisons
Q&A
- According to fuel consumption data, EQE 53 AMG SUV 4MATIC has a fuel consumption of No data, while Duster 1.6L PE (4x2) has a fuel consumption of 5.81. Therefore, No data is more fuel-efficient.
- In terms of interior space, EQE 53 AMG SUV 4MATIC has a wheelbase of 3030 mm, while Duster 1.6L PE (4x2) has a wheelbase of 2676 mm. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, EQE 53 AMG SUV 4MATIC, offers more room.
- Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. EQE 53 AMG SUV 4MATIC uses All Wheel Drive, while Duster 1.6L PE (4x2) uses Front Wheel Drive.