BYD F6: Which Version to Buy and Why
The BYD F6 range consists of one Sedan generation produced from 2007 to 2012, with four versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 MT, and 2.4 AT. The main choice is between a 1,991 cc engine with 140 hp and 186 Nm and a 2,378 cc engine with 165 hp and 220 Nm. The manual versions deliver the strongest measured acceleration: 2.4 MT reaches 100 km/h in 9.3 seconds, while 2.0 MT takes 10.2 seconds.
The BYD F6 range consists of one Sedan generation produced from 2007 to 2012, with four versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 MT, and 2.4 AT. The main choice is between a 1,991 cc engine with 140 hp and 186 Nm and a 2,378 cc engine with 165 hp and 220 Nm. The manual versions deliver the strongest measured acceleration: 2.4 MT reaches 100 km/h in 9.3 seconds, while 2.0 MT takes 10.2 seconds. Both automatic versions take 12 seconds. On the supplied figures, 2.4 MT is therefore the performance choice, 2.0 MT is the quicker option with the smaller engine, and 2.0 AT is the only version with measured city, highway, and combined fuel consumption.
BYD F6 generation and version choice
The 1 generation ran from 2007 to 2012 as a Sedan and contains all four listed versions. There is no second generation to compare, so the buying decision comes down entirely to engine size, transmission, performance, fuel requirements, and the completeness of the recorded specifications.
All versions are Gasoline, FWD models with an Inline 4-cylinder engine, 4 valves per cylinder, and No boost. Each also has 150 mm of ground clearance and a 50-litre tank. The differences begin with displacement and output: the 2.4-litre versions add 387 cc, 25 hp, and 34 Nm over the 2.0-litre versions. That represents about 17.9% more power and 18.3% more torque from approximately 19.4% more displacement.
BYD F6 engine and transmission specs
| Version | Displacement | Power | Torque | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 1,991 cc | 140 hp at 6,000 rpm | 186 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 95 | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 AT | 1,991 cc | 140 hp at 6,000 rpm | 186 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 92 | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.4 MT | 2,378 cc | 165 hp at 5,000 rpm | 220 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 95 | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.4 AT | 2,378 cc | 165 hp at 5,000 rpm | 220 Nm; torque rpm not measured | 92 | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
The 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, and 2.4 MT use Distributed injection (multi-point). The 2.4 AT uses Direct injection (direct). Engine position is recorded as Front, transverse for 2.0 MT and 2.4 MT; it is not measured for 2.0 AT and 2.4 AT.
Specific output is closely matched across the range. The 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT produce about 70.3 hp per litre, while the 2.4 MT and 2.4 AT produce about 69.4 hp per litre. The smaller engine therefore has a marginally higher power-per-litre figure, but the larger engine provides 25 hp and 34 Nm more in absolute terms.
Transmission choice has the clearer effect on measured acceleration. The 5-speed Manual is paired with a 10.2-second result in 2.0 MT and a 9.3-second result in 2.4 MT. Both versions with the 4-speed Automatic require 12 seconds.
BYD F6 performance and fuel economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 10.2 sec | 185 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 AT | 12 sec | 182 km/h | 10.8 l/100 km | 6.9 l/100 km | 9.4 l/100 km |
| 2.4 MT | 9.3 sec | 185 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.4 AT | 12 sec | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
The 2.4 MT is the quickest BYD F6 version, beating 2.0 MT to 100 km/h by 0.9 seconds and both automatic versions by 2.7 seconds. Moving from 2.0 MT to 2.0 AT adds 1.8 seconds to the measured acceleration time, while moving from 2.4 MT to 2.4 AT adds 2.7 seconds.
The highest measured top speed is 185 km/h, shared by 2.0 MT and 2.4 MT. The 2.0 AT reaches 182 km/h, a difference of 3 km/h. Top speed for 2.4 AT is not measured.
Only 2.0 AT has complete measured fuel-consumption figures: 10.8 l/100 km in the city, 6.9 l/100 km on the highway, and 9.4 l/100 km combined. Consumption for 2.0 MT, 2.4 MT, and 2.4 AT is not measured, so the supplied data cannot support an economy comparison between those versions. The 2.0 AT is also the only version with a recorded Euro 3 classification; the environmental class of the other three versions is not measured.
BYD F6 dimensions, weight, clearance, and wheels
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 1,435 kg | 1,980 kg | 150 mm | 50 litres | not measured |
| 2.0 AT | not measured | not measured | 150 mm | 50 litres | 205/65 R15; 205/60 R16 |
| 2.4 MT | 1,435 kg | 1,980 kg | 150 mm | 50 litres | not measured |
| 2.4 AT | not measured | not measured | 150 mm | 50 litres | 205/65 R15; 205/60 R16 |
The two manual versions have the same recorded kerb weight of 1,435 kg and gross weight of 1,980 kg. Because their kerb weights are equal, their weight-to-power comparison is direct: 2.0 MT carries about 10.25 kg per hp, while 2.4 MT carries about 8.70 kg per hp. The 2.4 MT therefore has roughly 1.55 fewer kilograms per horsepower, consistent with its 0.9-second advantage to 100 km/h.
Kerb and gross weights for 2.0 AT and 2.4 AT are not measured, so their weight-to-power ratios cannot be calculated. Wheel sizes are documented for both automatic versions as 205/65 R15 and 205/60 R16; wheel sizes for both manual versions are not measured.
All four versions use Independent, spring front suspension, Ventilated disc front brakes, and Disc rear brakes. The rear suspension is Semi-independent, spring on 2.0 MT and 2.4 MT, while 2.0 AT and 2.4 AT use Independent, spring rear suspension.
Which BYD F6 version should you buy?
Choose 2.4 MT when acceleration and power are the priorities. It has 165 hp, 220 Nm, and the best 0–100 km/h time of 9.3 seconds. Compared with 2.0 MT, it provides 25 hp and 34 Nm more without an increase in the recorded 1,435 kg kerb weight. Both manuals have the same measured 185 km/h top speed, so the 2.4 MT’s numerical advantage is strongest in acceleration and weight per horsepower.
Choose 2.0 MT if you want the smaller engine but still value measured performance. Its 140 hp and 186 Nm produce a 10.2-second 0–100 km/h time, making it 1.8 seconds quicker than 2.0 AT. It also matches 2.4 MT’s measured 185 km/h top speed. Its fuel consumption, however, is not measured.
Choose 2.0 AT when an Automatic gearbox and documented economy matter most. It is the only version with a full consumption set—10.8 l/100 km city, 6.9 l/100 km highway, and 9.4 l/100 km combined—and the only one with a recorded Euro 3 classification. The trade-off is performance: its 12-second acceleration time is 1.8 seconds behind 2.0 MT, and its 182 km/h top speed is 3 km/h lower.
Choose 2.4 AT if you want the 4-speed Automatic together with the range’s higher output of 165 hp and 220 Nm. It adds 25 hp and 34 Nm over 2.0 AT, but both automatic versions have the same measured 12-second 0–100 km/h time. Its top speed, consumption, kerb weight, gross weight, torque rpm, and environmental class are not measured. Consequently, the supplied numbers do not demonstrate a performance or economy gain over 2.0 AT beyond the higher engine output.
There are no price figures in the data, so no version can be called the best value or assessed by what extra money buys. Judged only by the supplied specifications, 2.4 MT offers the strongest performance case, 2.0 MT is the quicker smaller-engine choice, 2.0 AT provides the most complete economy evidence, and 2.4 AT combines the higher-output engine with an Automatic gearbox but has the largest set of unmeasured comparison figures.