At a glance
Here is how the two models stack up on the specs that matter most.
| Specification | Electric C Line | RadRunner 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Range | 45 km | 72 km |
| Battery | 0.3 kWh | 0.7 kWh |
| Efficiency | 0.7 kWh/100km | 0.9 kWh/100km |
| 0-100 km/h | 0 s | 0 s |
| Fast charge 10-80% | ~0 min | ~0 min |
| Seats | 1 | 1 |
| Price | $3,500 | $1,499 |
| Rating | 4.5/5 | 4.4/5 |
| Estimated running cost / year | $16 | $20 |
The RadRunner 2 wins 3 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 72 km for the RadRunner 2. That is effectively a tie - neither offers a meaningful range advantage.
The Electric C Line consumes about 0.7 kWh per 100 km versus 0.9 kWh for the RadRunner 2 - so the Electric C Line 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 RadRunner 2 seats 1. Check the full spec sheet for cargo volume.
Price & running costs
The Electric C Line lists at $3,500 and the RadRunner 2 at $1,499. At 15,000 km per year, estimated running costs are about $16/yr versus $20/yr.
Verdict
The RadRunner 2 is our pick, taking 3 of 8 categories in this head-to-head. It leads on the longer range (45 km vs 72 km), the larger battery (0.3 kWh vs 0.7 kWh) and the better price ($3,500 vs $1,499). That said, the Electric C Line is still the better buy if you plan to keep it long-term (roughly $4/yr cheaper to run).