At a glance
Here is how the two models stack up on the specs that matter most.
| Specification | RadRunner 2 | Ultimate C380 |
|---|---|---|
| Range | 72 km | 100 km |
| Battery | 0.7 kWh | 0.6 kWh |
| Efficiency | 0.9 kWh/100km | 0.6 kWh/100km |
| 0-100 km/h | 0 s | 0 s |
| Fast charge 10-80% | ~0 min | ~0 min |
| Seats | 1 | 1 |
| Price | $1,499 | $4,500 |
| Rating | 4.4/5 | 4.5/5 |
| Estimated running cost / year | $20 | $14 |
The Ultimate C380 wins 3 of 8 categories, making it our pick in this head-to-head.
Range & efficiency
The RadRunner 2 is rated for 72 km of range versus 100 km for the Ultimate C380. That is effectively a tie - neither offers a meaningful range advantage.
The RadRunner 2 consumes about 0.9 kWh per 100 km versus 0.6 kWh for the Ultimate C380 - so the Ultimate C380 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 RadRunner 2 seats 1 and the Ultimate C380 seats 1. Check the full spec sheet for cargo volume.
Price & running costs
The RadRunner 2 lists at $1,499 and the Ultimate C380 at $4,500. At 15,000 km per year, estimated running costs are about $20/yr versus $14/yr.
Verdict
The Ultimate C380 is our pick, taking 3 of 8 categories in this head-to-head. It leads on the longer range (72 km vs 100 km), the lower consumption (0.9 kWh/100km vs 0.6 kWh/100km) and the higher rating (4.4/5 vs 4.5/5). That said, the RadRunner 2 is still the better buy if you are on a tighter budget (it is $3,001 cheaper).