HomeArticlesProductsKeywordsCompanies

Compare SEAT Leon 4 vs Mercedes CLC CL203 vs Mercedes B-Class W247

Variants
1.0 eTSI DSG
1.0 TSI 110
1.0 TSI 90
1.4 e-HYBRID DSG
1.5 eTSI DSG
1.5 TGI
1.5 TGI DSG
1.5 TSI 130
1.5 TSI 150
2.0 TDI 115
2.0 TDI 150 DSG
2.0 TSI DSG
CLC 160
CLC 160 AT
CLC 180 Kompressor
CLC 180 Kompressor AT
CLC 200 CDI
CLC 200 CDI AT
CLC 200 Kompressor
CLC 200 Kompressor AT
CLC 220 CDI
CLC 220 CDI AT
CLC 230
CLC 230 AT
CLC 250
CLC 250 AT
CLC 350
CLC 350 AT
B 160
B 180
B 180 DCT
B 180d
B 180d DCT
B 200
B 200 4MATIC DCT
B 200 DCT
B 200d DCT
B 220 4MATIC DCT
B 220 DCT
B 220d 4MATIC DCT
B 220d DCT
B 250 4MATIC DCT
B 250 DCT
B 250e DCT

Capacity

Cargo Capacity
310 L / 10.9 cu-ft ~ 1100 L / 38.8 cu-ft
Fuel Capacity
62.0 L / 16.4 gal
Passengers
5
4
5

Chassis

Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Disc
Offroad | Approach Angle
13.4 deg
Offroad | Breakover Angle
9.4 deg
Offroad | Departure Angle
17.2 deg
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Electric Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Semi-independent, Torsion beam
Multi-link
Turning Circle
10.5 m / 34.4 ft
11.0 m / 36.1 ft

Construction

Battery | Capacity
12.8 kWh (gross)
15.6 kWh (gross)
Body Style
3-door Coupe

Dimensions

Ground Clearance
104 mm / 4.1 in
Size | Height
1405 mm / 55.3 in
1562 mm / 61.5 in
Size | Length
4368 mm / 172.0 in
4419 mm / 174.0 in
Track Width | Front
1505.0 mm / 59.3 in
1567.0 mm / 61.7 in
Track Width | Rear
1516.0 mm / 59.7 in
1476.0 mm / 58.1 in
1547.0 mm / 60.9 in
Wheelbase
2715 mm / 106.9 in
2729 mm / 107.4 in

Performance

Electric Range
58.0 km / 36.0 mi
70.0 km / 43.5 mi

Powertrain

Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Front-engine (longitudinal), Rear-wheel drive
Engine | Compression Ratio
10.6:1
Transmission | Gears
6 / 7 / 8-speed
Transmission | Type
Manual / automatic / DCT

Production

Debut
2018 Paris Auto Show

Reviews

Neofiliac score
17%
31%
27%
Pros
  • Low official fuel consumption
  • Less ugly than before
  • RWD remained
  • Slight interior improvements
  • Excellent 0.24 drag coefficient
  • Low fuel consumption
  • Better-looking than before
Cons
  • Poorly built
  • Only available with small engines
  • No independent rear suspensions
  • Arguably less appealing than its predecessor
  • Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
  • Cheaply put together
  • No powerful engine options
  • Basic suspension setup for FWD vehicles
  • Utilitarian

Price

Offers (incl. referral links)
Remove
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.