Bentley Continental GTC
Car comparison
Bentley Continental GTC 6.0 i W12 48VvsBentley Continental GT II · Facelift 2015 GT3-R 4.0
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonBentley Continental GT II · Facelift 2015
GT3-R 4.0
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Bentley Continental GT II Facelift 2015 GT3-R 4.0
- Quickest 0-100 km/h3.7 s
- Most powerful580 hp433 kW
- Highest torque700 Nm516 lb-ft
- Lightest2,195 kg4,839 lb
- Best power-to-weight264 hp/t197 kW/t3.8 kg/hp
- Lowest city consumption18.5 L/100 km12.7 mpg US15.3 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption9.2 L/100 km25.6 mpg US30.7 mpg UK
- Largest trunk358 L
- Best overall score76/100
- Best performance score88/100
- Best economy score73/100
- Best practicality score50/100
Bentley Continental GTC 6.0 i W12 48V
- Fastest top speed314 km/h195 mph
Specification comparison
| Model | BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 560hp418kW | 580hp433kW |
| Torque | 650Nm479lb-ft | 700Nm516lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 2,495kg5,501lb | 2,195kg4,839lb |
| Gross weight | 2,910kg6,415lb | 2,750kg6,063lb |
| Top speed | 314 km/h 195 mph | 304 km/h 189 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 99.3s99% target: 311 km/h / 193 mph Calculated | 63.1s99% target: 301 km/h / 187 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 5.1s | 3.7s |
| 0-200 km/h | 16.3s Calculated | 11.7s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 4.9s Calculated | 3.5s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | - | 12.7L/100 km18.5mpg US22.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 27.4L/100 km8.6mpg US10.3mpg UK | 18.5L/100 km12.7mpg US15.3mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 12.7L/100 km18.5mpg US22.2mpg UK | 9.2L/100 km25.6mpg US30.7mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 13.1s Calculated | 11.6s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 224hp/t167kW/t102hp/1000 lb Calculated | 264hp/t197kW/t120hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 261Nm/t174lb-ft/ton Calculated | 319Nm/t213lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | - | 709km440mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 5,998cc366cu in | 3,993cc244cu in |
| Length | 4,807mm189in | 4,806mm189in |
| Width | 1,918mm76in | 1,944mm77in |
| Height | 1,398mm55in | 1,404mm55in |
| Wheelbase | 2,745mm108in | 2,746mm108in |
| Front track | 1,623mm64in | 1,664mm66in |
| Rear track | 1,607mm63in | 1,655mm65in |
| Trunk volume | - | 358L |
| Max trunk volume | 235L | - |
| Doors | 2 | 2 |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Fuel tank | 90L | 90L |
| CO2 emissions | - | 295g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Bentley Continental GTC 6.0 i W12 48V: Power / Torque
- Bentley Continental GT II Facelift 2015 GT3-R 4.0: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | 6,100 rpm | 1,650 rpm | 6,350 rpm |
| BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 | 6,000 rpm | 1,700 rpm | 6,250 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 4.9 s | 3.5 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 5.1 s | 3.7 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 16.3 s | 11.7 s |
| Top speed | 314 km/h 195 mph | 304 km/h 189 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.2 s | 1.9 s |
330 ft 101 m | 5.8 s | 5.1 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 8.6 s | 7.6 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 11.1 s | 9.8 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 13.1 s | 11.6 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 179 km/h 111 mph | 200 km/h 124 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | 560 hp 418 kW |
| BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 | 580 hp 433 kW |
Bentley Continental GT II Facelift 2015 GT3-R 4.0 has 20 hp more than Bentley Continental GTC 6.0 i W12 48V.
The biggest power difference is between Bentley Continental GTC 6.0 i W12 48V and Bentley Continental GT II Facelift 2015 GT3-R 4.0: 20 hp (15 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | 650 Nm 479 lb-ft |
| BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 | 700 Nm 516 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | 2,495 kg 5,501 lb |
| BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 | 2,195 kg 4,839 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | 314 km/h 195 mph |
| BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 | 304 km/h 189 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | 5.1 s |
| BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 | 3.7 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Bentley Continental GT II Facelift 2015 GT3-R 4.0 and Bentley Continental GTC 6.0 i W12 48V: 1.4 s.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | 224 hp/t 167 kW/t 4.5 kg/hp |
| BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 | 264 hp/t 197 kW/t 3.8 kg/hp |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | 560 hp 418 kW | 5.1 s | 314 km/h 195 mph |
| BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 | 580 hp 433 kW | 3.7 s | 304 km/h 189 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | BentleyContinental GTC6.0 i W12 48V | BentleyContinental GT IIFacelift 2015GT3-R 4.0 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 560 hp 418 kW | 580 hp 433 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 650 Nm 479 lb-ft | 700 Nm 516 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 5.1 s | 3.7 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 314 km/h 195 mph | 304 km/h 189 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 2,495 kg 5,501 lb | 2,195 kg 4,839 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | - | 12.7 L/100 km 18.5 mpg US 22.2 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | - | 709 km 440 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | - | 295 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 235 L 8.3 cu ft | 358 L 12.6 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 224 hp/t 167 kW/t 4.5 kg/hp | 264 hp/t 197 kW/t 3.8 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Bentley Continental GT II Facelift 2015 GT3-R 4.0 |
|---|---|
| Consumption | 12.7 L/100 km18.5 mpg US22.2 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 22.22 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 35.77 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,905 L503 US gal419 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 3,334 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Bentley Continental GTC 6.0 i W12 48V
- Has 10 km/h (6 mph) higher top speed
Pros
- Highest top speed
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Heaviest
- Smallest trunk
Bentley Continental GT II Facelift 2015 GT3-R 4.0
- Has 20 hp more
- Has 50 Nm more
- Is 300 kg lighter
- Is 1.4 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 40 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 123 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























