DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

2003 MG ZR vs 2003 Great Wall SUV Comparison

Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.

VS
WINNER

MG ZR

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.

60.25–59.5
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

MG ZRSpecificationGreat Wall SUV
MGMakeGreat Wall
ZRModelSUV
2003Model year2003
HatchbackBody typeOff-road vehicle
5Seats5
3/5Doors5

Performance

MG ZRSpecificationGreat Wall SUV
10,0 s0–100 km/h—
185 km/hTop speed140 km/h
1994 ccEngine displacement2237 cc
113 HPPower105 HP
260 NmTorque190 Nm
4Cylinders4

Fuel & Consumption

MG ZRSpecificationGreat Wall SUV
DieselFuel typePetrol
50 ltFuel tank70 lt
7,7 ltUrban consumption—
4,2 ltExtra-urban consumption—
5,6 ltAverage consumption7,9 lt

Transmission & Chassis

MG ZRSpecificationGreat Wall SUV
Front-wheel driveDrivetrain4x4
5Gears5
205/50 R16Tyre size—
YesABS—

Dimensions

MG ZRSpecificationGreat Wall SUV
4011 mmLength4860 mm
1690 mmWidth1725 mm
1400 mmHeight1820 mm
1155 KgWeight1760 Kg
2502 mmWheelbase2615 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

2003 MG ZR and 2003 Great Wall SUV approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.

Overall, MG ZR leads the E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.

SIMILAR COMPARISONS

Similar comparisons

Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.

Comments are loading…