Chery CrossEastar (B14): Which Version to Buy and Why
The Chery CrossEastar (B14) catalogue offers two versions: 2.0 MT and 2.4 AT. Both belong to the model’s only generation, produced from September 2008 through July 2013 as a Compact Van.
The Chery CrossEastar (B14) catalogue offers two versions: 2.0 MT and 2.4 AT. Both belong to the model’s only generation, produced from September 2008 through July 2013 as a Compact Van. The choice is straightforward: the 2.0 MT has the higher output at 136 hp and a 5-speed Manual gearbox, while the 2.4 AT combines 196 Nm with a 4-speed Automatic gearbox and is the only version with measured acceleration and fuel-consumption figures. The available data contains no prices, so any claim about what extra money buys would be speculative; the comparison below instead shows what each version provides mechanically.
Generation comparison
There is only 1 generation of the Chery CrossEastar (B14), so there are no later generations or restylings to compare. It ran from September 2008 to July 2013 and used a Compact Van body. Its two listed versions, 2.0 MT and 2.4 AT, share FWD, Gasoline engines, four Inline cylinders, four valves per cylinder, no boost, and distributed injection (multi-point).
Because both versions have the same production dates, choosing between them is not a question of selecting an earlier or later generation. It is a choice between the smaller, more powerful-per-litre engine with a Manual gearbox and the larger, higher-torque engine with an Automatic gearbox.
Engine specs: 2.0 MT vs 2.4 AT
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 136 hp (100 kW) at 5500 rpm | 180 Nm at 4000 rpm | 1971 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.4 AT | 129 hp (95 kW) at 5500 rpm | 196 Nm at 3000 rpm | 2350 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
The 2.0 MT produces 7 hp more than the 2.4 AT, despite having 379 cc less displacement. Its specific output is approximately 69.0 hp per litre, compared with approximately 54.9 hp per litre for the 2.4 AT. On this measure, the 2.0 MT extracts about 14.1 more horsepower from each litre of displacement.
The 2.4 AT reverses the result for torque. Its 196 Nm output is 16 Nm higher than the 2.0 MT figure of 180 Nm, and peak torque arrives at 3000 rpm rather than 4000 rpm. The larger engine therefore reaches its listed torque maximum 1000 rpm earlier. Its compression ratio is 9.5, while the 2.0 MT has a compression ratio of 10.
Engine placement is listed as Front, transverse for the 2.4 AT. That parameter is not measured for the 2.0 MT. Bore and stroke are 86.5 × 100 mm for the 2.4 AT and not measured for the 2.0 MT.
Performance, fuel economy, and mpg data
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption | Emissions class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | not measured | 170 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.4 AT | 15 s | 178 km/h | 12 L/100 km | 8 L/100 km | 10.6 L/100 km | Euro 3 |
The 2.4 AT has the higher measured maximum speed: 178 km/h versus 170 km/h for the 2.0 MT, a difference of 8 km/h. It reaches 100 km/h in 15 seconds. Acceleration for the 2.0 MT is not measured, so the 7 hp advantage does not establish which version accelerates faster.
Fuel consumption is available only for the 2.4 AT: 12 L/100 km in the city, 8 L/100 km on the highway, and 10.6 L/100 km combined. The city figure is 4 L/100 km higher than the highway figure. Consumption for the 2.0 MT is not measured, so the data cannot support a claim that the smaller engine and Manual gearbox use less fuel. CO₂ output is not measured for either version.
This difference in data coverage matters to a buyer. The 2.4 AT offers a complete set of listed acceleration and consumption figures, making its expected catalogue performance easier to quantify. With the 2.0 MT, top speed is the only measured performance result.
Weight, ground clearance, tank, and wheel sizes
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Weight per horsepower | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 1505 kg | 2030 kg | approximately 11.1 kg/hp | 164 mm | 62 L | not measured |
| 2.4 AT | 1505 kg | 2030 kg | approximately 11.7 kg/hp | 125 mm | 62 L | not measured |
The versions have identical listed weights: 1505 kg kerb and 2030 kg gross. The difference between gross and kerb weight is 525 kg in either case.
Because the weight is the same but the power outputs differ, the 2.0 MT has the better calculated weight-to-power relationship. It carries approximately 11.1 kg for each horsepower, while the 2.4 AT carries approximately 11.7 kg per horsepower. Expressed the other way around, the 2.0 MT provides approximately 90.4 hp per tonne of kerb weight, compared with approximately 85.7 hp per tonne for the 2.4 AT.
Ground clearance creates a larger practical distinction. The 2.0 MT is listed at 164 mm, while the 2.4 AT has 125 mm. The 2.0 MT therefore provides 39 mm more listed clearance. Both versions have the same 62 L fuel tank. Wheel sizes are not measured for either version.
Chassis and braking differences
Both versions use an Independent, spring front suspension and Ventilated disc front brakes. The 2.4 AT also has an Independent, spring rear suspension and Disc rear brakes. Rear suspension and rear brake specifications for the 2.0 MT are not measured, so the available data does not justify assuming that they match the 2.4 AT.
Neither version has a clear advantage in kerb weight, gross weight, tank capacity, drive layout, front suspension, or front brakes because the listed values are the same. The significant measured differences are engine displacement, power, torque, gearbox, maximum speed, ground clearance, and the availability of performance and economy data.
Problems, reliability, and ownership evidence
Problems and reliability are not measured in the supplied data for either 2.0 MT or 2.4 AT. There are no records here for repair frequency, component life, maintenance cost, owner satisfaction, or common faults. Consequently, neither version can be called more reliable on the basis of this catalogue.
The data also contains no prices or sale listings. It is therefore impossible to calculate whether the 2.4 AT commands a premium or whether that premium would be justified. What the 2.4 AT demonstrably adds is an Automatic gearbox, 379 cc of displacement, 16 Nm of torque, and 8 km/h of top speed. Compared with it, the 2.0 MT demonstrably adds 7 hp, one forward gear, 39 mm of ground clearance, stronger calculated power per litre, and a better calculated weight-per-horsepower figure.
Which Chery CrossEastar (B14) version should you buy?
Choose the 2.0 MT if the priority is the higher power output, Manual transmission, or greater listed ground clearance. It produces 136 hp from 1971 cc, has a 5-speed Manual gearbox, and offers 164 mm of clearance. It is also the stronger option by the calculated measures of power per litre and kerb weight per horsepower.
Choose the 2.4 AT if an Automatic gearbox and higher torque matter more. Its 2350 cc engine produces 196 Nm at 3000 rpm, giving it 16 Nm more torque and delivering the peak 1000 rpm earlier than the 2.0 MT. It also has the higher measured top speed and is the only version with stated 0–100 km/h and fuel-consumption results.
Overall, the 2.0 MT is the numbers-based choice for power efficiency, weight-to-power ratio, and clearance. The 2.4 AT is the choice for automatic shifting, greater torque, and better-documented performance and economy. Reliability, wheel-size, pricing, and 2.0 MT fuel-economy evidence are not measured, so they should not be used to declare either version the universal winner.