At a glance
Here is how the two models stack up on the specs that matter most.
| Specification | Electric C Line | Turbo Vado 4.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Range | 45 km | 145 km |
| Battery | 0.3 kWh | 0.5 kWh |
| Efficiency | 0.7 kWh/100km | 0.4 kWh/100km |
| 0-100 km/h | 0 s | 0 s |
| Fast charge 10-80% | ~0 min | ~0 min |
| Seats | 1 | 1 |
| Price | $3,500 | $4,000 |
| Rating | 4.5/5 | 4.6/5 |
| Estimated running cost / year | $16 | $9 |
The Turbo Vado 4.0 wins 4 of 8 categories, making it our pick in this head-to-head.
Range & efficiency
The Electric C Line is rated for 45 km of range versus 145 km for the Turbo Vado 4.0. That is a difference of about 100 km, which matters most if you do regular long trips.
The Electric C Line consumes about 0.7 kWh per 100 km versus 0.4 kWh for the Turbo Vado 4.0 - so the Turbo Vado 4.0 is the cheaper and greener option per kilometre.
Performance
Acceleration figures vary by trim; check the full spec sheet below for the exact variant tested.
Charging
Charging time depends on the charger and battery temperature; the lower 10-80% figure means shorter stops on long trips.
Space & comfort
The Electric C Line seats 1 and the Turbo Vado 4.0 seats 1. Check the full spec sheet for cargo volume.
Price & running costs
The Electric C Line lists at $3,500 and the Turbo Vado 4.0 at $4,000. At 15,000 km per year, estimated running costs are about $16/yr versus $9/yr.
Verdict
The Turbo Vado 4.0 is our pick, taking 4 of 8 categories in this head-to-head. It leads on the longer range (45 km vs 145 km), the larger battery (0.3 kWh vs 0.5 kWh) and the lower consumption (0.7 kWh/100km vs 0.4 kWh/100km). That said, the Electric C Line is still the better buy if you are on a tighter budget (it is $500 cheaper).