BYD S6

BYD S6: which version to buy

The BYD S6 existed as 1 generation of SUV 5-doors, sold from 2011-05-01 to 2015-06-30, in 6 gasoline, front-wheel-drive versions. There is no second generation in the data, so the choice is only among those six: 1.5 MT (141 hp), two distinct 2.0 MT cars (129 hp and 140 hp), 2.0 AT (140 hp), 2.4 AT (165 hp), and 2.4 MT (165 hp).

The BYD S6 existed as 1 generation of SUV 5-doors, sold from 2011-05-01 to 2015-06-30, in 6 gasoline, front-wheel-drive versions. There is no second generation in the data, so the choice is only among those six: 1.5 MT (141 hp), two distinct 2.0 MT cars (129 hp and 140 hp), 2.0 AT (140 hp), 2.4 AT (165 hp), and 2.4 MT (165 hp). Production ends in June 2015, so a search for a 2016, 2025, or 2026 S6 is not a later generation of this model — it is outside this catalogue row.

Specs table: all six versions, same generation

Engine position is Front, transverse on 1.5 MT and on 2.0 MT (129 hp). It is not measured on 2.0 MT (140 hp), 2.0 AT, 2.4 AT, and 2.4 MT. Feed is Distributed injection (multi-point) on the 1.5 and both 2.0 families; Direct injection (direct) on both 2.4 versions. Every version uses Independent, spring suspension front and rear, Ventilated disc front brakes, Disc rear brakes, 190 mm ground clearance, and a 65 L tank. Wheel sizes are not measured on all six.

Engine: litres, horsepower, and what the extra displacement buys

The 1.5 MT is the only turbocharged S6. From 1497 cc it makes 141 hp — 94.2 hp per litre (141 ÷ 1.497). That is 29.4 hp/L more than 2.0 MT (129 hp) at 64.8 hp/L (129 ÷ 1.991), 23.9 hp/L more than 2.0 MT (140 hp) at 70.3 hp/L (140 ÷ 1.991), and 24.8 hp/L more than either 2.4 at 69.4 hp/L (165 ÷ 2.378).

Peak torque does not follow displacement. 1.5 MT has 240 Nm from 1750–3500 rpm — 54 Nm more than either 2.0 (186 Nm) and 20 Nm more than either 2.4 (220 Nm). The 1.5 also reaches that torque 2250 rpm earlier than 2.0 MT (129 hp) if you take the 1750 vs 4000 band edges, and 2250 rpm earlier than 2.0 MT (140 hp) at a single 4000 rpm peak. On paper the smallest engine is the strongest in the mid-range.

What the extra 494 cc of a 2.0 versus the 1.5 actually buys depends on which 2.0 MT you mean. Versus 2.0 MT (129 hp) the 1.5 is 12 hp stronger (141 − 129) despite 494 cc less. Versus 2.0 MT (140 hp) the 1.5 is 1 hp stronger (141 − 140) and 54 Nm stronger. The 2.0 family only “wins” displacement, not output.

The 2.4 pair adds 387 cc over the 2.0 (2378 − 1991) and 25 hp over the 140 hp 2.0 (165 − 140), or 36 hp over the 129 hp 2.0 (165 − 129). That is +15.4% power for +19.4% capacity versus the 140 hp 2.0. Torque rises 34 Nm (220 − 186). The 2.4 is the peak-power choice, not the peak-torque choice.

Peak power rpm: 1.5 MT and both 2.4 versions peak at 5000; all three 2.0 versions peak at 6000. The 1.5 and 2.4 make their rated horsepower 1000 rpm lower than the 2.0 family.

Two cars named 2.0 MT: 129 hp vs 140 hp

Do not treat 2.0 MT as one car. 2.0 MT (129 hp) is 95 kW at 6000 rpm, 186 Nm in a 4500–4000 window, kerb 1695 kg. 2.0 MT (140 hp) is 103 kW at 6000 rpm, 186 Nm at a single 4000 rpm, kerb 1620 kg, gross 1995 kg. Same name, same 1991 cc, same 5-speed Manual, same FWD, same 12.9 s to 100 km/h, same 180 km/h, same 10.7 / 6.9 / 8.3 L/100 km.

The 140 hp car is 11 hp stronger (140 − 129 = +8.5%) and 75 kg lighter (1695 − 1620). Power-to-weight: 13.14 kg/hp on the 129 hp car (1695 ÷ 129) versus 11.57 kg/hp on the 140 hp car (1620 ÷ 140). That is 1.57 kg less per horsepower on the 140 hp 2.0 MT. Gross mass is not measured on the 129 hp 2.0 MT and 1995 kg on the 140 hp 2.0 MT. If you are shopping a used 2.0 MT, the 140 hp listing is the stronger and lighter of the two; the 129 hp listing is the heavier, weaker twin with the same measured speed and the same measured mpg.

Manual vs automatic on the same engines

2.0 MT (140 hp) and 2.0 AT share 140 hp, 103 kW, 6000 rpm, 186 Nm at 4000, 1991 cc, Gasoline, 4 Inline, No boost, FWD. The difference is Manual, 5 versus Automatic, 4. On 2.0 MT (140 hp), 0–100 is 12.9 s, top speed 180 km/h, consumption 10.7 / 6.9 / 8.3, kerb 1620 kg. On 2.0 AT every one of those is not measured; only gross mass 1995 kg is listed (same as the 140 hp 2.0 MT). Choosing 2.0 AT is choosing a 4-speed Automatic with the same peak power as the 140 hp manual, not a proven change in acceleration or mpg — those figures were not measured.

2.4 MT and 2.4 AT share 165 hp, 121 kW at 5000, 220 Nm (rpm not measured), 2378 cc, Direct injection (direct), FWD. Gearboxes: Manual, 5 vs Automatic, 4. 2.4 MT has 0–100 12.9 s, top speed 185 km/h, 12.8 / 7.9 / 9.7 L/100 km, kerb 1700 kg, gross 2075 kg. 2.4 AT has 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured, consumption not measured, kerb not measured, gross 2075 kg. The automatic 2.4 is the same peak power and the same 2075 kg gross as the manual 2.4; it is not a measured faster or slower car.

1.5 MT is the only 6-speed Manual. Both 2.0 manuals and 2.4 MT are 5-speed. Both automatics are 4-speed. There is no automatic 1.5 in the data.

Performance and mpg: what was measured, what was not

0–100 km/h is 12.9 s on three manuals: 2.0 MT (129 hp), 2.0 MT (140 hp), and 2.4 MT. It is not measured on 1.5 MT, 2.0 AT, and 2.4 AT. The extra 25 hp of 2.4 MT versus 2.0 MT (140 hp) does not change the listed 0–100 figure: both are 12.9 s. Top speed does change: 185 km/h on 2.4 MT versus 180 on both measured 2.0 MT cars — +5 km/h. Top speed is not measured on 1.5 MT, 2.0 AT, and 2.4 AT.

Fuel use, where measured:

• 2.0 MT (129 hp) and 2.0 MT (140 hp): city 10.7, highway 6.9, mixed 8.3 L/100 km.
• 2.4 MT: city 12.8, highway 7.9, mixed 9.7 L/100 km.

2.4 MT uses 2.1 L/100 km more in the city (12.8 − 10.7), 1.0 more on the highway (7.9 − 6.9), 1.4 more mixed (9.7 − 8.3) than either measured 2.0 MT. That is +16.9% mixed fuel for +25 hp versus the 140 hp 2.0, or +36 hp versus the 129 hp 2.0. Consumption is not measured on 1.5 MT, 2.0 AT, and 2.4 AT. CO2 and eco class are not measured on all six. All listed fuel is 92.

Tank is 65 L on every version. Mixed range from the tank, using only measured mixed figures: 2.0 MT either power, 65 ÷ 8.3 × 100 ≈ 783 km; 2.4 MT, 65 ÷ 9.7 × 100 ≈ 670 km — about 113 km less per tank on the 2.4 manual.

Dimensions and weight: kg per horsepower

Ground clearance is 190 mm on all six. Wheel size is not measured on all six. Kerb and gross:

2.4 MT is the best measured power-to-weight: 10.30 kg/hp, 1.27 kg/hp better than 2.0 MT (140 hp) and 2.84 kg/hp better than 2.0 MT (129 hp). It is also the heaviest measured kerb at 1700 kg — 80 kg more than 2.0 MT (140 hp) (1700 − 1620) and 15 kg more than 1.5 MT (1700 − 1685). Gross mass on both 2.4 cars is 2075 kg, 80 kg above the 1995 kg gross of 2.0 MT (140 hp) and 2.0 AT. Payload where both masses exist: 2.0 MT (140 hp) 375 kg (1995 − 1620); 2.4 MT 375 kg (2075 − 1700). Same payload, different empty weight.

1.5 MT at 1685 kg sits 65 kg above the lightest measured car (2.0 MT 140 hp) and 10 kg below 2.0 MT (129 hp). Its 11.95 kg/hp is close to the 140 hp 2.0 and far from the 129 hp 2.0.

Generations: what changed (and what did not)

There is 1 generation. Years 2011-05-01–2015-06-30, body SUV 5-doors, 6 versions. No restyle row, no generation 2. Chassis constants across all six: FWD, 190 mm clearance, 65 L tank, independent spring suspension both ends, ventilated discs front, Disc rear. What varies is only engine, boost, injection type, gearbox, and the measured masses and speeds above. A 2013, 2014, or 2015 S6 in this catalogue is still this generation; the data do not split those years into different specs.

Which version to choose

If you want the strongest mid-range and the only turbo: 1.5 MT. It has the highest specific output (94.2 hp/L), the highest torque (240 Nm), the widest published torque band (1750–3500), the only 6-speed Manual, and 141 hp — 1 hp above 2.0 MT (140 hp) and 12 hp above 2.0 MT (129 hp). Trade-off: 0–100, top speed, and mpg are not measured, so you cannot rank it on those three against the 2.0 and 2.4 manuals.

If you want the lightest measured car and the lowest measured fuel use: 2.0 MT (140 hp). Kerb 1620 kg, mixed 8.3 L/100 km, 0–100 12.9 s, 180 km/h. It is 75 kg lighter than the other 2.0 MT and 80 kg lighter than 2.4 MT, with the same 12.9 s as 2.4 MT. Do not confuse it with 2.0 MT (129 hp): same mpg and same 12.9 s / 180 km/h, but 11 hp less and 75 kg more.

If the listing only says 2.0 MT and you cannot check power: treat 129 hp and 140 hp as different cars. The 129 hp version is the weakest S6 (129 hp, 13.14 kg/hp) and the second-heaviest measured kerb (1695 kg). Same 186 Nm as the 140 hp 2.0, worse specific output.

If you want an automatic 2.0: 2.0 AT matches 2.0 MT (140 hp) on 140 hp / 186 Nm / 1991 cc and on 1995 kg gross. You give up a measured 0–100, top speed, mpg, and kerb (not measured) and drop from 5 Manual gears to 4 Automatic gears. That is a gearbox choice, not a proven performance upgrade.

If you want peak horsepower: 2.4 MT or 2.4 AT, both 165 hp and 220 Nm, Direct injection (direct), 2378 cc. 2.4 MT is the one with numbers: 12.9 s, 185 km/h (+5 vs the 2.0 manuals), mixed 9.7 L/100 km (+1.4 vs the 2.0 manuals), best kg/hp (10.30), heaviest kerb (1700), gross 2075. 2.4 AT is the same peaks and the same 2075 kg gross with 0–100, top speed, mpg, and kerb not measured.

If you want the 2.4 without paying the measured fuel penalty in the brochure: you cannot prove that from this data — only 2.4 MT has mpg, and it is worse than both 2.0 MT cars. 2.4 AT mpg is not measured.

Skip if the goal is a later year: this generation stops 2015-06-30. There is no 2016, 2025, or 2026 generation in the data. Dimensions beyond clearance, tank, and the masses above (including a Lexus-style size comparison) are not measured. Prices are not in this dataset.

Short ranking on measured figures only. Strongest torque: 1.5 MT (240 Nm). Strongest power: 2.4 MT / 2.4 AT (165 hp). Lightest: 2.0 MT (140 hp) at 1620 kg. Best measured kg/hp: 2.4 MT (10.30). Best measured mixed mpg: both 2.0 MT cars (8.3). Same 0–100 where measured: 12.9 s on three manuals. Highest measured top speed: 2.4 MT at 185 km/h. Most unknowns: 1.5 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 AT (acceleration, speed, and mpg not measured).