First of all, we start from the body, the Passat length is 4948mm than Magton's 4865mm looks to be a circle larger, but the wheelbase of the two models are 2871mm, the layout of the internal space is also very similar, there is not much feeling to sit in, in general, the size and space are relatively close, Passat has a greater advantage in the size, There is basically no difference in the internal space, the appearance of the two cars looks somewhat similar, the overall style is also there is a feeling of calm atmosphere, it looks quite handsome.
The engine of the two models is unexpected, once all for 2.0T186hp engine with 7 wet dual clutch, the reason why this engine can be used by the two models at the same time, but also has its many advantages, strong power and large horsepower let him in the face of the medium-sized car this big is also effortless. And whether it is in the load or climbing and a variety of more complex cases, can ensure a very strong power output, this engine is also widely praised in the industry, belongs to the top configuration, for power has a certain demand for people, this engine is a good choice, and normal 186 horsepower is completely enough to use, More than 200 horsepower will feel a bit of excess power, and the fuel consumption will be higher but not cost-effective.
The two cars also have a lot of similarities in the internal configuration, in the internal material, the vast majority of the two cars are made of leather material, basically no exposed plastic in the car. The 10.3 and 10.2 inch LCD dashboard and 9.2 inch touch LCD screen look very good, but in some features, the old Magotan is slightly less than the latest Passat, such as the Passat's 360-degree panoramic image and full-speed adaptive cruise compared to the Magotan's reverse image and cruise. In general, the overall configuration of the two cars is relatively close, Magton in the discount after the price is more cost-effective, but indeed in some of the latest technology is not as good as the Passat, but I feel Magton cost-effective is also very high.