Rich 2.4L DC (4x2) vs Landtrek 2.4T DC 4x2 (M/T) Comparison
Car Information
Engine / Motor
160 km/h
182 km/h
Dimensions
5 Seater
5 Seater
5080 mm
5330 mm
1720 mm
1963 mm
1680 mm
1897 mm
3050 mm
3180 mm
830 L
/
Fuel Economy
12.7 Km/L
10.2 Km/L
60 L
80 L
12.7 Km/L
10.2 Km/L
Comfort
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
Safety
/
✓
Chassis & Steering
Rear Wheel Drive
Rear Wheel Drive
Key Spec
2.4 L
2.4 L
217 BHP
210 BHP
Manual
Automatic & Manual
Gasoline
Gasoline & Petrol
TBD
TBD
5 Seater
5 Seater
Exterior
✓
✓
Engine
2.4 L
2.4 L
Gasoline
Gasoline
217 BHP
210 BHP
136 Nm
320 Nm
Comparison of configuration highlights
Rich 2.4L DC (4x2)
- Parking sensor rear
- Parking sensor front
Landtrek 2.4T DC 4x2 (M/T)
- 360 Degree camera
- 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 PickRich 2.4L DC (4x2)
Expert / Editor Recommendation
Choose Rich 2.4L DC (4x2) if you care more about price; choose Landtrek 2.4T DC 4x2 (M/T) if you care more about interior space.
Popular Car Comparisons
Q&A
- According to fuel consumption data, Rich 2.4L DC (4x2) has a fuel consumption of 7.87, while Landtrek 2.4T DC 4x2 (M/T) has a fuel consumption of 9.8. Therefore, Rich 2.4L DC (4x2) is more fuel-efficient.
- In terms of interior space, Rich 2.4L DC (4x2) has a wheelbase of 3050 mm, while Landtrek 2.4T DC 4x2 (M/T) has a wheelbase of 3180 mm. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, Landtrek 2.4T DC 4x2 (M/T), offers more room.
- Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. Rich 2.4L DC (4x2) uses Rear Wheel Drive, while Landtrek 2.4T DC 4x2 (M/T) uses Rear Wheel Drive.