Avtokam 3101

Which version to buy: Avtokam 3101 specs compared

Both versions share the same production window (1990-01-01 to 1993-12-31), the same SUV 3-doors body, rear-wheel drive (RWD), a 4-speed Manual, Gasoline fuel type, 4 cylinders in Inline layout, No boost, independent spring front suspension, dependent spring rear suspension, and drum front brakes.

Both versions share the same production window (1990-01-01 to 1993-12-31), the same SUV 3-doors body, rear-wheel drive (RWD), a 4-speed Manual, Gasoline fuel type, 4 cylinders in Inline layout, No boost, independent spring front suspension, dependent spring rear suspension, and drum front brakes. Rear brakes, 0–100, top speed, consumption, kerb weight, gross weight, ground clearance, tank, and wheel sizes are not measured on either version, so those cannot decide the purchase.

What does decide it is the engine package.

2.0 MT versus 1.8 MT in arithmetic from the given numbers:

• Power: 115 hp versus 87 hp — 28 hp more on 2.0 MT (about 32% more: 28 ÷ 87).
• Power in kilowatts: 85 kW versus 64 kW — 21 kW more.
• Displacement: 1998 cm³ versus 1796 cm³ — 202 cm³ more (about 11% more displacement for 32% more power).
• Specific output: 2.0 MT makes 115 hp from 1.998 L → 57.6 hp per litre. 1.8 MT makes 87 hp from 1.796 L → 48.4 hp per litre. The 2.0 is not only larger; it is denser in power per litre by 9.1 hp/L.
• Specific output in kW: 2.0 MT 85 ÷ 1.998 ≈ 42.5 kW/L; 1.8 MT 64 ÷ 1.796 ≈ 35.6 kW/L.
• Valves per cylinder: 4 on 2.0 MT versus 2 on 1.8 MT.
• Fuel system: Distributed injection (multi-point) on 2.0 MT versus Carburetor on 1.8 MT.
• Torque: 167 Nm at 2500 rpm on 2.0 MT; torque and torque rpm on 1.8 MT are not measured, so you cannot compute a torque gap or a Nm-per-litre figure for the 1.8.
• Peak power rpm: 5500 on 2.0 MT; power rpm on 1.8 MT is not measured.
• Compression: 9.8 on 2.0 MT; not measured on 1.8 MT.
• Bore × stroke: 86 × 86 on 2.0 MT (square); not measured on 1.8 MT.
• Fuel grade: 95 on 2.0 MT; not measured on 1.8 MT.

There is no price in this dataset, so “what the extra money buys” can only be stated as what the extra 202 cm³, the extra 28 hp, the move from 2 to 4 valves per cylinder, and the move from Carburetor to Distributed injection (multi-point) buy on paper. Weight per horsepower cannot be calculated: kerb weight is not measured on both versions.

Choose 2.0 MT if you want the higher output (115 hp / 85 kW), the only measured torque (167 Nm), multi-point injection, four valves per cylinder, and the only compression, bore/stroke, and fuel-grade figures in the model. Choose 1.8 MT if you want the smaller 1796 cm³ carbureted four at 87 hp / 64 kW with the same 4-speed Manual and RWD layout, and you accept that torque, rpm peaks, compression, fuel grade, and economy are not measured.

Overview: one generation, two engines, same years

The Avtokam 3101 is a single-generation model. Production of the generation and of both versions runs from 1990-01-01 to 1993-12-31. Body type is SUV 3-doors. Generation count is 1. Modification count is 2: 1.8 MT and 2.0 MT. No other body, gearbox type, or drive type appears in the data. You are not choosing among generations; you are choosing between two contemporaneous engines on the same chassis recipe.

Generations: 1 generation (1990–1993), SUV 3-doors, 2 versions

1 generation of the Avtokam 3101 ran from 1990-01-01 to 1993-12-31. Body: SUV 3-doors. Versions in this generation: 2 (1.8 MT, 2.0 MT). There is no restyling listed as a separate generation. Both versions start and stop on the same dates, so a later-year car is not a different generation and does not, in this catalogue, gain a different gearbox, drive, or body.

Because there is only one generation, “which generation changed what” is answered by: nothing later replaced this generation in the given data. The comparison that matters is inside the generation, between 1.8 MT and 2.0 MT.

Engines and specs

Version names below are exactly as in the data.

Further engine fields that sit next to the same version names:

1.8 MT: power rpm not measured; torque rpm not measured; valves per cylinder 2; fuel system Carburetor; compression not measured; bore × stroke not measured; fuel grade not measured; gears 4.

2.0 MT: power at 5500 rpm; torque 167 Nm at 2500 rpm; valves per cylinder 4; fuel system Distributed injection (multi-point); compression 9.8; bore × stroke 86 × 86; fuel grade 95; gears 4.

Same on both: Gasoline, 4 Inline cylinders, No boost, Manual with 4 gears, RWD. Engine location is not measured on both.

The 2.0’s square 86 × 86 geometry and 9.8 compression sit only on 2.0 MT. Do not assign those numbers to 1.8 MT.

Performance and economy (mpg, 0–100, top speed)

For catalogue completeness: none of the usual performance or economy figures were measured on either version.

• 0–100: 1.8 MT not measured; 2.0 MT not measured. You cannot rank sprint from this dataset. The 28 hp gap does not become a 0–100 delta here.
• Top speed: 1.8 MT not measured; 2.0 MT not measured.
• Fuel consumption city / highway / combined: not measured on 1.8 MT and not measured on 2.0 MT. There is no mpg (or L/100 km) figure to prefer one version on economy.
• CO2: not measured on both.
• Eco class: not measured on both.

A buyer who wants a measured 0–100, top speed, or mpg number will not find it in this Avtokam 3101 dataset. The only performance-adjacent numbers that exist are 115 hp / 85 kW / 167 Nm on 2.0 MT and 87 hp / 64 kW on 1.8 MT, plus the 5500 / 2500 rpm points on 2.0 MT only.

Dimensions and weight

Kerb weight, gross weight, ground clearance, fuel tank, and wheel sizes are not measured for 1.8 MT and not measured for 2.0 MT. Weight per horsepower cannot be computed (no kerb mass). You cannot say which version is lighter or which has more clearance.

What is measured on the chassis side is the same for both versions:

• Front suspension: Independent, spring
• Rear suspension: Dependent, spring
• Front brakes: Drum
• Rear brakes: not measured

Choosing 2.0 MT does not, in this data, buy a different suspension or a different front brake type. The extra 28 hp sits on the same listed spring/drum package.

Reliability and problems: what the specs do and do not show

This catalogue does not list failure rates, recall counts, or owner-reported problems. Reliability cannot be scored from the given numbers. What can be stated without inventing faults:

• 1.8 MT uses a Carburetor on a 2-valve Inline 4, Gasoline, No boost, Manual 4, RWD.
• 2.0 MT uses Distributed injection (multi-point) on a 4-valve Inline 4, Gasoline, No boost, Manual 4, RWD, fuel grade 95, compression 9.8.

Neither version has boost. Both are RWD. Both use drum front brakes; rear brake type is not measured. Anyone searching “Avtokam 3101 problems” or “reliability” will not find a measured problem list here; they will find two naturally aspirated Gasoline fours that differ in induction, valve count, and output.

Which version to choose — decision using only these numbers

There is no generation choice. 1 generation, 1990–1993, SUV 3-doors, two versions.

Pick 2.0 MT when you want:

• 115 hp and 85 kW (28 hp / 21 kW above 1.8 MT);
• 57.6 hp per litre instead of 48.4 hp per litre;
• the only torque figure in the model: 167 Nm at 2500 rpm;
• 4 valves per cylinder instead of 2;
• Distributed injection (multi-point) instead of Carburetor;
• documented compression 9.8, bore × stroke 86 × 86, and fuel 95.

Pick 1.8 MT when you want the 1796 cm³ / 87 hp / 64 kW Carburetor Inline 4 with 2 valves per cylinder, still on Manual 4 and RWD, and you accept torque, rpm, compression, fuel grade, 0–100, top speed, consumption, weights, clearance, tank, and wheels as not measured.

Do not pick on mpg, 0–100, top speed, kerb weight, ground clearance, tank size, or wheels: all not measured. Do not pick on a later generation: there is none in the data. Do not rename the versions; they remain 1.8 MT and 2.0 MT.

The extra displacement is 202 cm³; the extra power is 28 hp. Power rose faster than displacement (about 32% power versus about 11% capacity), which matches the jump from 2 to 4 valves per cylinder and from carburetor to multi-point injection on 2.0 MT. Without a measured mass, that extra power is not a measured power-to-weight gain — only a measured power and specific-output gain.

Short answer: for the Avtokam 3101 in this catalogue, 2.0 MT is the version with the complete, higher-output engine sheet; 1.8 MT is the smaller carbureted alternative on the same 1990–1993 SUV 3-doors RWD Manual 4-speed package.