T Roc R-Line vs CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) Comparison
Car Information
Engine / Motor
4
/
/
190 km/h
Dimensions
5
5 Seater
18
/
4251
4275 mm
1819
1765 mm
1594
1535 mm
2603
2570 mm
445
240 L
Fuel Economy
15.8
15.4 Km/L
50
48 L
/
15.4 Km/L
Comfort
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
Interior
8
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Dual
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Safety
✓
/
Driver And Front Passenger Airbag With Front Passenger Airbag Deactivation.Curtain Airbag System For Front And Rear Passengers Incl. Side Airbags In Front.
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
Infotainment
8
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
6
/
Transmission
8 Speed Automatic
/
Chassis & Steering
Front Wheel Drive
All Wheel Drive
Wheels/brakes
✓
/
✓
/
Key Spec
1.4 L - 1400 L
2.0 L - 2000 L
150 BHP
110 BHP - 148 BHP
8 Speed Automatic & Automatic
Automatic
Gasoline & Petrol
Petrol
TBD
TBD
5 - 5
5 Seater
Exterior
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
Engine
1.4
2.0 L
Gasoline
Gasoline
150 BHP
148 BHP
250
192 Nm
Technologies
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Comparison of configuration highlights
T Roc R-Line
- Electronic engine immobilizer
- Power Tailgate
- 360 Degree camera
- Rear AC Controls
- Electric Curtain - Rear
- Temperature Display
- Rear Camera
- Steering Adjustment
- Anti-Theft Alarm System
- Number of Airbags
- Pedestrian airbag
- First Aid Kit
- Fire Extinguisher
- Door Edge Protector
- Crosswind Assist
- Active Understeer Control (AUC)
- Collision Detection
- Blind Spot Warning
- Knee Bag - Driver
- Speed Limiter
- Auto Door Lock
- Spare Wheel
- EBD (Electronic Brakeforce Distribution)
- ABS
- Child Seat Interface (ISOFIX)
- Wheel Bolt With Anti-theft Protection(Unlockable)
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
Expert / Editor Recommendation
Choose T Roc R-Line if you care more about fuel economy; choose CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) if you care more about overall equipment.
Popular Car Comparisons
Q&A
- According to fuel consumption data, T Roc R-Line has a fuel consumption of 6.33, while CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) has a fuel consumption of 6.49. Therefore, T Roc R-Line is more fuel-efficient.
- In terms of interior space, T Roc R-Line has a wheelbase of 2603, while CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) has a wheelbase of 2570 mm. Generally, the model with the longer wheelbase, T Roc R-Line, offers more room.
- Check drive type, ground clearance and torque together. T Roc R-Line uses Front Wheel Drive, while CX3 2.0L GT (FWD) uses All Wheel Drive.