Avtokam 2160: which version to choose (1.5 MT vs 1.7 MT)
The Avtokam 2160 was sold in one generation (1990–1993) as an SUV 3-doors with two named versions: 1.5 MT and 1.7 MT. There is no later generation to wait for and no restyling to treat as a separate choice. The buying decision is therefore a comparison of those two manuals on the numbers that exist: 1.7 MT adds 13 hp (72 → 85) and 27 Nm (106 → 133) on 221 cm³ more displacement (1478 → 1699).
The Avtokam 2160 was sold in one generation (1990–1993) as an SUV 3-doors with two named versions: 1.5 MT and 1.7 MT. There is no later generation to wait for and no restyling to treat as a separate choice. The buying decision is therefore a comparison of those two manuals on the numbers that exist: 1.7 MT adds 13 hp (72 → 85) and 27 Nm (106 → 133) on 221 cm³ more displacement (1478 → 1699). Acceleration to 100, top speed, fuel use, kerb weight, gross weight, tank size, ground clearance and wheel sizes are not measured for either version, so they cannot break the tie.
People searching avtokam 2160 are usually trying to pick a spec, not to re-read a model history. Below, every figure sits next to the exact version name from the catalogue.
Generations: what actually changed between choices
1 generation (1990-01-01 to 1993-12-31) is the whole production window. Body: SUV 3-doors. Versions in this generation: 2 — 1.5 MT and 1.7 MT. Both run the same calendar: start 1990-01-01, stop 1993-12-31. There is no second generation, so there is no “later chassis” or “facelift gearbox” to pay for. What changed between the two cars is the engine size and the output that comes with it, not the years or the door count.
Shared across both versions of this generation (and therefore not a reason to prefer one over the other): Gasoline; 4 cylinders, Inline; 2 valves per cylinder; boost No; engine position Front, longitudinal; fuel system Carburetor; fuel 92; gearbox Manual, 4 speeds; drive RWD; front suspension Independent, spring; rear suspension Dependent, spring; front brakes Drum; rear brakes Drum.
Engine specs: the two versions side by side
| Version | hp | Nm | Displacement (cm³) | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 MT | 72 | 106 | 1478 | 92 | 4 | Inline | No | Manual 4 | RWD |
| 1.7 MT | 85 | 133 | 1699 | 92 | 4 | Inline | No | Manual 4 | RWD |
1.5 MT peak power: 72 hp / 53 kW at 5400 rpm; peak torque 106 Nm at 3200 rpm; compression 9.5; bore × stroke 82 × 70.
1.7 MT peak power: 85 hp / 63 kW at 5300 rpm; peak torque 133 Nm at 3200 rpm; compression 8.5; bore × stroke 85 × 74.9.
Both versions are Carburetor, Front, longitudinal, Gasoline, 92.
Which version to choose: arithmetic on the given numbers
Power gap. 1.7 MT has 13 hp more than 1.5 MT (85 − 72). That is 13 / 72 ≈ 18.1% more peak horsepower. In kilowatts the same step is 10 kW (63 − 53), or 10 / 53 ≈ 18.9%.
Torque gap. 1.7 MT has 27 Nm more than 1.5 MT (133 − 106). That is 27 / 106 ≈ 25.5% more peak torque. Torque peaks at the same crank speed on both: 3200 rpm. The extra 27 Nm is therefore not “the same engine pulled to a higher rev”; it is more twist at the same rpm point.
Displacement that buys that output. The larger engine is 221 cm³ bigger (1699 − 1478), or 221 / 1478 ≈ 15.0% more swept volume. Peak power rose by about 18.1% while volume rose by about 15.0%; peak torque rose by about 25.5%. On these figures, 1.7 MT converts the extra cubic centimetres more into torque than into horsepower.
Power per litre (specific output).
- 1.5 MT: 72 hp ÷ (1478 / 1000) = 48.7 hp per litre (53 kW ÷ 1.478 ≈ 35.9 kW per litre).
- 1.7 MT: 85 hp ÷ (1699 / 1000) = 50.0 hp per litre (63 kW ÷ 1.699 ≈ 37.1 kW per litre).
Difference: about 1.3 hp per litre in favour of 1.7 MT. The larger engine is not a lazy long-stroke lump on paper; it is slightly more powerful per litre as well as larger.
Torque per litre.
- 1.5 MT: 106 ÷ 1.478 ≈ 71.7 Nm per litre.
- 1.7 MT: 133 ÷ 1.699 ≈ 78.3 Nm per litre.
Difference: about 6.6 Nm per litre for 1.7 MT. That matches the larger relative torque gap (25.5%) versus the displacement gap (15.0%).
Bore and stroke. 1.5 MT is 82 × 70. 1.7 MT is 85 × 74.9. Bore is 3 mm larger; stroke is 4.9 mm longer. Both remain 4 cylinders, Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No. The catalogue does not name a different cylinder layout between versions.
Compression. 1.5 MT is 9.5; 1.7 MT is 8.5. The smaller engine is 1.0 point higher. Fuel is 92 on both, so the compression step is not a different octane grade in this data. A buyer who wants the higher compression number as written is looking at 1.5 MT; a buyer who wants the higher Nm and hp is looking at 1.7 MT. Those two preferences point at opposite versions.
Where peak power sits. 1.5 MT peaks at 5400 rpm; 1.7 MT at 5300 rpm — 100 rpm lower for the larger engine. Torque peak rpm is identical (3200). The extra 13 hp of 1.7 MT is not earned by spinning farther; it is earned at a slightly lower power peak.
What does not differ (so it cannot decide the purchase). Gearbox is Manual with 4 speeds on 1.5 MT and on 1.7 MT. Drive is RWD on both. Body is SUV 3-doors on both. Boost is No on both. Fuel system is Carburetor on both. Front brakes Drum, rear brakes Drum on both. Front suspension Independent, spring, rear Dependent, spring on both. Engine location Front, longitudinal on both. You do not buy a different transmission, a different drive layout, or a different brake type by stepping from 1.5 MT to 1.7 MT.
What the extra displacement buys, in this catalogue. There are no prices in the data, so “what the extra money buys” can only be stated as what the extra 221 cm³ buys on the spec sheet: +13 hp, +10 kW, +27 Nm, +1.3 hp/L, +6.6 Nm/L, −100 rpm on the power peak, −1.0 compression (9.5 → 8.5), +3 mm bore, +4.9 mm stroke. It does not buy a fifth gear, AWD, injection, or disc brakes — those items are not in either row.
Weight per horsepower. Kerb weight is not measured for 1.5 MT and not measured for 1.7 MT. Gross weight is not measured for both. Power-to-weight cannot be calculated. Anyone ranking these two by “kg per hp” is ranking on a number this catalogue does not have.
Performance and economy (mpg, 0–100)
For 1.5 MT: 0–100 is not measured; top speed is not measured; city consumption is not measured; highway consumption is not measured; combined consumption is not measured; CO2 is not measured; eco class is not measured.
For 1.7 MT: 0–100 is not measured; top speed is not measured; city consumption is not measured; highway consumption is not measured; combined consumption is not measured; CO2 is not measured; eco class is not measured.
You cannot choose 1.5 MT as the “economy” car or 1.7 MT as the “fast” car using this sheet. The only performance-related numbers that exist are the engine peaks above. Combined mpg, city mpg and highway mpg are not measured for either named version.
Dimensions, weight, tank, clearance
For 1.5 MT: kerb weight not measured; gross weight not measured; ground clearance not measured; fuel tank not measured; wheels not measured.
For 1.7 MT: kerb weight not measured; gross weight not measured; ground clearance not measured; fuel tank not measured; wheels not measured.
Dimensions and weight therefore do not separate the two versions. Ground clearance, tank volume and wheel sizes are the same kind of gap: not measured, not “the same by implication.” A search for Avtokam 2160 dimensions or weight will not be answered by a figure in this data.
Reliability and problems: what the spec sheet does and does not say
There is no reliability score, failure list, or service interval in the given data. Claiming that 1.5 MT is more reliable because it has less power, or that 1.7 MT is harder on the Drum brakes, would be invention. Shared hardware that is in the data and that a buyer should treat as common to both: Carburetor, Manual 4, RWD, Drum / Drum, Independent, spring / Dependent, spring, Gasoline 92, boost No.
The one mechanical contrast that is actually numbered is the engine: 1478 cm³ / 72 hp / 106 Nm / compression 9.5 versus 1699 cm³ / 85 hp / 133 Nm / compression 8.5. Problems unique to one version are not measured.
Decision in one pass
- Choose 1.7 MT if the goal is the higher outputs in this generation: 85 hp, 63 kW, 133 Nm, 50.0 hp/L, 78.3 Nm/L, on 1699 cm³, still Manual 4 and RWD, still SUV 3-doors, years 1990–1993. You pay, in spec terms, 221 cm³ and 1.0 compression point for 13 hp and 27 Nm.
- Choose 1.5 MT if the goal is the smaller engine and the higher compression figure: 72 hp, 53 kW, 106 Nm, 48.7 hp/L, 71.7 Nm/L, 1478 cm³, compression 9.5, same Manual 4, same RWD, same body and years. You give up 18.1% peak hp and 25.5% peak torque versus 1.7 MT.
- Do not choose on 0–100, top speed, mpg, kerb weight, clearance, tank or wheels: all of those are not measured for 1.5 MT and not measured for 1.7 MT.
- Do not wait for another generation: pokoleniy = 1. The only version pair in the catalogue is 1.5 MT vs 1.7 MT.