BAIC Luba

BAIC Luba: which version to buy (2000–2017, 1 generation)

There is only 1 generation of the BAIC Luba, built 2000-01-01 to 2017-12-31 as an SUV 5-doors with 5 versions. The buying choice is not “which generation,” because nothing later replaced this one. It is which of five powertrains to live with: two 2.4 MT cars that share the same name and 130 hp but not the same drive, then 2.7 MT, 3.0 MT, and 3.4 AT.

There is only 1 generation of the BAIC Luba, built 2000-01-01 to 2017-12-31 as an SUV 5-doors with 5 versions. The buying choice is not “which generation,” because nothing later replaced this one. It is which of five powertrains to live with: two 2.4 MT cars that share the same name and 130 hp but not the same drive, then 2.7 MT, 3.0 MT, and 3.4 AT.

Which BAIC Luba version to choose

Name the versions exactly as they sit in the catalogue, because two of them are both called 2.4 MT.

All five use Distributed injection (multi-point), a Front, longitudinal engine, 92 fuel, a 90 L tank, 220 mm ground clearance, Independent, spring front and Dependent, spring rear suspension, and Disc front brakes. None of that splits the field. What does: drive on the two 2.4 MT cars, power and mass on the rest, and the only automatic plus the only measured fuel figures on 3.4 AT.

2.4 MT AWD vs 2.4 MT RWD — same name, one real fork

Both 2.4 MT versions make 130 hp (96 kW) and 190 Nm at 2800 rpm from 2351 cc, 4 Inline cylinders, No boost, Manual 5, top speed 140. Kerb weight, 0–100, and consumption are not measured on both. Gross mass is 2740 kg on both. Rear brakes are Drum on both.

The only measured difference is drive: AWD versus RWD. If you need all-wheel drive, the AWD 2.4 MT is the entry ticket; the RWD 2.4 MT is the same 130 hp engine without that axle. There is no power, tank, or clearance bonus for choosing AWD here — those numbers are identical.

Power per litre on either 2.4 MT: 130 / 2.351 ≈ 55.3 hp/L. That is already close to the peak of this generation (see 2.7 MT below). You are not buying a “weak engine architecture”; you are buying the smallest displacement and the lowest peak power and the lowest top speed (140 versus 150 on 2.7 MT / 3.0 MT and 180 on 3.4 AT).

2.7 MT — the measured manual to buy if you want numbers, not guesses

2.7 MT is the first step that actually publishes a 0–100 time and a kerb weight.

• Power: 150 hp (110 kW) at 4800 rpm versus 130 hp on 2.4 MT — +20 hp (+15%).
• Torque: 240 Nm at 4000 rpm versus 190 Nm at 2800 on 2.4 MT — +50 Nm (+26%).
• Displacement: 2693 cc versus 2351 — +342 cc.
• Power per litre: 150 / 2.693 ≈ 55.7 hp/L, slightly above 2.4 MT’s 55.3.
• 0–100: 11.9 s (not measured on both 2.4 MT cars and on 3.0 MT).
• Top speed: 150 versus 140 on 2.4 MT — +10.
• Kerb weight: 1750 kg (not measured on 2.4 MT and 3.0 MT).
• Gross weight: 2680 kg versus 2740 on the 2.4 MT pair and on 3.0 MT / 3.4 AT — 60 kg lighter at full mass.
• Compression 9.5, bore × stroke 95 × 95. Drive AWD, Manual 5, rear Drum.

Kilograms per horsepower on 2.7 MT: 1750 / 150 ≈ 11.7 kg/hp. That is the only kg/hp figure you can compute among the manuals, because the others have kerb weight not measured.

If the question is “which manual has a complete spec sheet,” 2.7 MT is the answer. You pay for 20 hp and 50 Nm over 2.4 MT, keep AWD, and you can actually quote 0–100 and kerb mass.

3.0 MT — 10 hp more than 2.7 MT, and several blanks

3.0 MT is 160 hp (118 kW) from 2960 cc, AWD, Manual 5, top speed 150 (same as 2.7 MT), gross 2740 kg (+60 versus 2.7 MT’s 2680).

What you do not get, because they are not measured: torque, torque rpm, 0–100, kerb weight, compression, bore × stroke, any fuel use.

Power versus 2.7 MT: +10 hp (+7%) from +267 cc. Power per litre: 160 / 2.960 ≈ 54.1 hp/L — the lowest specific output of the five. Top speed does not rise (150 = 2.7 MT). Gross mass is higher. Without 0–100 and kerb weight, you cannot prove the extra 10 hp is faster or lighter on the road.

Buy 3.0 MT only if you specifically want 2960 cc and 160 hp on a Manual 5 AWD. Do not buy it expecting a documented performance step over 2.7 MT — that step is not measured.

3.4 AT — the only automatic, the only 6-cylinder, the only mpg sheet

3.4 AT is the top of the ladder and the only version that is not a Manual.

• 185 hp (136 kW) at 4800 rpm, 294 Nm at 4000, 3378 cc, 6 cylinders, V-shaped, No boost, Automatic 4, AWD.
• Compression 9.6, bore × stroke 93.5 × 82.
• 0–100 10.9 s, top speed 180.
• Fuel: city 17.6, highway 11.1, mixed 13.1 (all other versions: consumption not measured).
• Kerb 1900 kg, gross 2740 kg.
• Rear brakes Disc — the only Luba that is not Drum at the rear.

Versus 2.7 MT (the other version with a full performance pair):

• Power +35 hp (185 − 150); kW +26 (136 − 110).
• Torque +54 Nm (294 − 240).
• Displacement +685 cc (3378 − 2693).
• 0–100 1.0 s quicker (10.9 versus 11.9).
• Top speed +30 (180 versus 150).
• Kerb +150 kg (1900 versus 1750).
• kg/hp: 1900 / 185 ≈ 10.3 kg/hp versus 11.7 on 2.7 MT — about 1.4 kg less per horsepower, so the extra mass does not eat the extra power.
• Power per litre: 185 / 3.378 ≈ 54.8 hp/L, between 2.7 MT (55.7) and 3.0 MT (54.1).
• Gears: 4 Automatic versus 5 Manual.
• Cylinders: 6 V-shaped versus 4 Inline.

Versus 2.4 MT: +55 hp, +104 Nm (294 − 190), top speed +40 (180 − 140). 0–100 cannot be compared because 2.4 MT is not measured.

Versus 3.0 MT: +25 hp, displacement +418 cc, top speed +30, and 3.0 MT still has torque and 0–100 not measured. 3.4 AT is the documented faster car.

Fuel is the catch that only this version admits: mixed 13.1, city 17.6, highway 11.1. You cannot say the manuals are “more economical” — their mpg is not measured. You can only say 3.4 AT is the one whose thirst is written down.

Specs table (engines)

Every version is Gasoline, No boost, Front, longitudinal, Distributed injection (multi-point), 92 fuel.

• 2.4 MT AWD: 130 hp / 96 kW, 190 Nm @ 2800, 2351 cc, 4 Inline, Manual 5, AWD. Peak rpm for power: not measured.
• 2.4 MT RWD: same engine numbers, RWD.
• 2.7 MT: 150 hp / 110 kW @ 4800, 240 Nm @ 4000, 2693 cc, 4 Inline, Manual 5, AWD.
• 3.0 MT: 160 hp / 118 kW, torque not measured, 2960 cc, 4 Inline, Manual 5, AWD. Power rpm not measured.
• 3.4 AT: 185 hp / 136 kW @ 4800, 294 Nm @ 4000, 3378 cc, 6 V-shaped, Automatic 4, AWD.

Performance and mpg

Rank by what is actually measured: 3.4 AT is quickest to 100 and fastest on top speed; 2.7 MT is the only other timed car; 2.4 MT is slowest on the speedometer (140); 3.0 MT matches 2.7 MT on top speed and then goes silent.

Dimensions, weight, tank

Wheel sizes: not measured on all five.

Ground clearance and tank do not change with version. Payload you can compute only where kerb exists: 2.7 MT 2680 − 1750 = 930 kg; 3.4 AT 2740 − 1900 = 840 kg. 2.7 MT therefore carries 90 kg more on the published figures. For 2.4 MT and 3.0 MT, payload is not measured because kerb is not measured.

Generations (what actually changed — nothing later)

1 generation, 2000-01-01–2017-12-31, SUV 5-doors, 5 versions. There is no second generation to jump to, and no restyling listed as a separate generation. Buying “a newer Luba generation” is not a choice in this data. The choice is inside this one body: RWD 2.4 MT if you do not need AWD; AWD 2.4 MT if you do and 130 hp is enough; 2.7 MT if you want the documented manual; skip 3.0 MT unless you insist on 160 hp without a timed 0–100; take 3.4 AT if you want Automatic, 6 V-shaped cylinders, Disc rear brakes, 10.9 s to 100, and 180 top speed, and you accept mixed 13.1.

Reliability / problems — what the numbers do and do not say

This catalogue does not list failure rates. What it does list: every engine is naturally aspirated (No boost), Gasoline, 92 fuel, same injection label, same tank. Rear Drum on four manuals versus rear Disc only on 3.4 AT. Eco class and CO2 are not measured on all five. Do not infer a “problem generation”; there is only one generation.

Buy this if…

• 2.4 MT RWD: lowest power (130 hp), RWD, Manual 5, top 140. Same engine as the AWD twin.
• 2.4 MT AWD: same 130 hp with AWD. Still no 0–100, no mpg, no kerb.
• 2.7 MT: 150 hp, 240 Nm, 11.9 s, kerb 1750, lightest gross (2680), best published payload (930 kg), highest hp/L (55.7). The manual to pick when you want figures.
• 3.0 MT: 160 hp and 2960 cc on Manual AWD, top 150, torque and 0–100 not measured, weakest hp/L (54.1). Hard to justify over 2.7 MT with arithmetic.
• 3.4 AT: 185 hp, 294 Nm, 10.9 s, 180, Automatic 4, 6 V-shaped, rear Disc, kerb 1900, mixed 13.1. The one to buy when the extra 35 hp over 2.7 MT and the only automatic matter more than 150 kg extra kerb.