Rich 2.4L DC (4x2) vs Standard Petrol 2WD MT Comparison
Car Information
Engine / Motor
160 km/h
/
Dimensions
5 Seater
5
5080 mm
5370
1720 mm
1960
1680 mm
1880
3050 mm
3230
830 L
/
/
1970
/
17"
Fuel Economy
12.7 Km/L
8.33
60 L
80
12.7 Km/L
/
Comfort
✓
/
✓
/
Interior
/
✓
/
✓
Infotainment
/
✓
Transmission
/
MT
Chassis & Steering
Rear Wheel Drive
Rear Drive
/
4x2
/
Double Wishbone
/
Leaf Spring
/
Hydraulic
Wheels/brakes
/
✓
/
✓
Key Spec
2.4 L
-
217 BHP
158 - 161
Manual
AT & MT
Gasoline
Diesel & Gasoline
TBD
TBD
5 Seater
5
Exterior
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Front
Engine
2.4 L
2.4
Gasoline
Gasoline
217 BHP
158
136 Nm
230
/
5500
/
4000
Comparison of configuration highlights
Rich 2.4L DC (4x2)
- Parking sensor rear
- Parking sensor front
Standard Petrol 2WD MT
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 Standard Petrol 2WD MT 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 Standard Petrol 2WD MT has a fuel consumption of 12. 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 Standard Petrol 2WD MT has a wheelbase of 3230. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, Standard Petrol 2WD MT, offers more room.
- Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. Rich 2.4L DC (4x2) uses Rear Wheel Drive, while Standard Petrol 2WD MT uses Rear Drive.