Mercedes-AMG CLE 53 vs Toyota RAV4
Mercedes-AMG CLE 53
$82,600
Toyota RAV4
$35,699 – $36,450
AI Comparison Summary
Comparing Mercedes-AMG CLE 53 vs Toyota RAV4. Toyota RAV4 offers the strongest value on price. Mercedes-AMG CLE 53 leads on expert rating.
Category Winners
Overall Winner
Mercedes-AMG CLE 53
Best Value
Toyota RAV4
Fuel Economy
Toyota RAV4
Performance
Mercedes-AMG CLE 53
Toyota RAV4
4.7/10Visual Comparison
Category Radar
Price & Reviews
Model Year
Expert Rating
Mercedes-AMG CLE 53
$82,600
Rating: 4.8/10
Toyota RAV4
$35,699 – $36,450
Rating: 4.7/10
| Specification |
Mercedes-AMG CLE 53 |
Toyota RAV4 |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | Mercedes-AMG | Toyota |
| Model | CLE 53 | RAV4 |
| Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Type | — | — |
| Body Style | Cabriolet | Compact Crossover SUV |
| Current Price | $82,600 | $35,699 – $36,450 |
| MSRP | $82,600 | $36,450 |
| Dealer Price | $80,000 | $35,199 |
| Engine | AMG-enhanced 3.0L inline-6 turbo with hybrid assist | 2.5L Hybrid System |
| Horsepower | 443 hp | 236 hp (AWD net combined) |
| Torque | 413 lb-ft | Hybrid system output (manufacturer managed) |
| 0–60 mph | 4.2 sec (0-60 mph) | Approx. 7.0 sec (0-60 mph) |
| Top Speed | 155 mph | Approx. 115 mph |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Hybrid |
| Mileage / MPG | 22 MPG combined | 40 MPG combined (AWD hybrid est.) |
| Range (EV) | N/A | N/A |
| Emissions | 213 g/km | ULEV/SULEV compliant (market dependent) |
| Battery | Mild Hybrid Integrated Starter-Generator | Lithium-ion hybrid battery |
| Charging | N/A | Self-charging hybrid (regenerative + engine) |
| Expert Rating | 4.8/10 | 4.7/10 |
| Community Reviews | 1 | 1720 |
| Performance Score | 9.2 | 8.5 |
| Comfort Score | 9.0 | 8.9 |
| Safety Score | 9.0 | 9.4 |
| Fuel Economy Score | 19 MPG | 9.5 |
| Technology Score | 9.4 | 8.8 |
| Value Score | 8.5 | 9.2 |
| Pros | Thrilling inline-6 turbo engine with hybrid assist; Agile handling with rear-axle steering and 4MATIC+; Luxurious interi... | Excellent hybrid fuel economy; Strong reliability and resale reputation; Comprehensive standard safety features; Practic... |
| Cons | Rear seating space is somewhat tight; Fuel economy is modest during spirited driving; Premium pricing with options | Ride can feel firm on rough roads; Interior design is functional rather than luxurious; Higher trims increase cost quick... |
