2026Canadian prices and NRCan ratings
Mercedes-Benz AMG G 63 SUV vs Rolls-Royce Cullinan
Mercedes-BenzAMG G 63 SUVCombined16.2 L/100 kmAhead on 1 pointRolls-RoyceCullinanCombined16.4 L/100 km
Key differences
From published figures, not a road test- The AMG G 63 SUV uses 0.2 L/100 km less combined (16.2 vs 16.4), about 40 L less fuel over 20,000 km.
Side by side
Add a third model →| Spec | Mercedes-BenzMercedes-Benz AMG G 63 SUV | Rolls-RoyceRolls-Royce Cullinan |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP from | — | — |
| Vehonix efficiency score (out of 10) | 1.2/10 | 1.1/10 |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Fuel | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Combined (L or Le/100 km) | 16.2 | 16.4 |
| City | 17.4 | 19.7 |
| Highway | 14.7 | 12.4 |
| Electric range | — | — |
| Level 2 charge (240 V) | — | — |
| Total range (PHEV) | — | — |
| CO2 (g/km) | 383 | 379 |
| CO2 rating (out of 10) | — | — |
| Smog rating (out of 10) | — | — |
| Max power | — | — |
| Seats | — | — |
| Drivetrain | — | — |
| AWD / 4WD offered (winter) | No | No |
| Fuel required | — | — |
| Manual offered | No | No |
| Rated configurations | 1 | 1 |
| 2026 safety recalls (Transport Canada) | 0 | 0 |
The best figure on each row is highlighted. MSRP is the cheapest checked trim; fuel use is the most efficient trim.