Chevrolet Epica: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Chevrolet Epica version to choose depends on whether you value fuel economy, acceleration, automatic convenience, or maximum speed. Based strictly on the available specifications, the first-generation 2.0 MT Diesel offers the lowest combined consumption and the strongest torque, while the 2.5 AT Gasoline provides the highest top speed.
The Chevrolet Epica version to choose depends on whether you value fuel economy, acceleration, automatic convenience, or maximum speed. Based strictly on the available specifications, the first-generation 2.0 MT Diesel offers the lowest combined consumption and the strongest torque, while the 2.5 AT Gasoline provides the highest top speed. Among the restyled cars, the 2.0 MT is quicker and more economical than the 2.0 AT, whereas the 2.5 AT adds power and torque without improving acceleration over the manual 2.0 MT.
Chevrolet Epica generations and version changes
The Chevrolet Epica is represented here by one generation in Sedan form, plus its restyling. The original first generation ran from February 2006 through December 2009 and included five listed versions: two Gasoline 2.0 MT/AT specifications with 143 hp, a 150 hp Diesel 2.0 MT, a 156 hp Gasoline 2.5 AT, and a separate 131 hp Gasoline 2.0 AT.
The first-generation restyling ran from September 2009 through January 2013, also as a Sedan. It had three versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, and 2.5 AT. All were Gasoline, all had Inline 6-cylinder engines, and all used FWD. The principal transmission change shown in the data concerns the automatic versions: the restyled 2.0 AT and 2.5 AT have Automatic 6-speed gearboxes, compared with Automatic 5-speed gearboxes for their matching pre-restyling specifications. Their stated acceleration, top speed, and fuel-consumption figures did not change.
Chevrolet Epica engine and gearbox specs
Because two original-generation versions share the name 2.0 MT and two share the name 2.0 AT, they are distinguished below by power and fuel type. Exact version names remain unchanged.
| Period and version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First generation — 2.0 AT, 143 hp | 143 hp (105 kW) at 6400 rpm | 195 Nm at 4600 rpm | 1993 cc | Gasoline | 6, Inline | No | Automatic, 5-speed | FWD |
| First generation — 2.0 MT, 143 hp | 143 hp (105 kW) at 6400 rpm | 195 Nm at 4600 rpm | 1993 cc | Gasoline | 6, Inline | No | Manual, 5-speed | FWD |
| First generation — 2.0 MT, 150 hp | 150 hp (110 kW) at 4000 rpm | 320 Nm at 2000 rpm | 1991 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5-speed | FWD |
| First generation — 2.5 AT, 156 hp | 156 hp (115 kW) at 5800 rpm | 237 Nm at 4000 rpm | 2492 cc | Gasoline | 6, Inline | No | Automatic, 5-speed | FWD |
| First generation — 2.0 AT, 131 hp | 131 hp (96 kW) at 5400 rpm | 181 Nm at 4200 rpm | 1998 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | Automatic, 5-speed | FWD |
| Restyling — 2.0 MT | 143 hp (105 kW) at 6400 rpm | 195 Nm at 4600 rpm | 1993 cc | Gasoline | 6, Inline | No | Manual, 5-speed | FWD |
| Restyling — 2.0 AT | 143 hp (105 kW) at 6400 rpm | 195 Nm at 4600 rpm | 1993 cc | Gasoline | 6, Inline | No | Automatic, 6-speed | FWD |
| Restyling — 2.5 AT | 156 hp (115 kW) at 5800 rpm | 237 Nm at 4000 rpm | 2492 cc | Gasoline | 6, Inline | No | Automatic, 6-speed | FWD |
The first-generation 2.0 MT Diesel has the highest specific output at approximately 75.3 hp per litre. The 143 hp Gasoline 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT versions produce approximately 71.8 hp per litre, while the 131 hp 2.0 AT produces approximately 65.6 hp per litre. The 156 hp 2.5 AT delivers approximately 62.6 hp per litre.
Torque separates the engines more clearly. The Diesel 2.0 MT produces 320 Nm, which is 83 Nm more than the 2.5 AT and 125 Nm more than the 143 hp Gasoline 2.0 versions. It also reaches its torque peak at 2000 rpm, compared with 4000 rpm for the 2.5 AT and 4600 rpm for the 143 hp Gasoline 2.0 engine.
Chevrolet Epica performance and fuel economy
| Period and version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First generation — 2.0 AT, 143 hp | 11.8 s | 199 km/h | 12.4 L/100 km | 6.8 L/100 km | 8.9 L/100 km |
| First generation — 2.0 MT, 143 hp | 9.9 s | 207 km/h | 11.4 L/100 km | 6.3 L/100 km | 8.2 L/100 km |
| First generation — 2.0 MT, 150 hp Diesel | 9.7 s | 200 km/h | 7.5 L/100 km | 5.3 L/100 km | 6.1 L/100 km |
| First generation — 2.5 AT, 156 hp | 9.9 s | 209 km/h | 13.8 L/100 km | 6.6 L/100 km | 9.3 L/100 km |
| First generation — 2.0 AT, 131 hp | 11.8 s | 188 km/h | 13.4 L/100 km | 7.3 L/100 km | 9.6 L/100 km |
| Restyling — 2.0 MT | 9.9 s | 207 km/h | 11.4 L/100 km | 6.3 L/100 km | 8.2 L/100 km |
| Restyling — 2.0 AT | 11.8 s | 199 km/h | 12.4 L/100 km | 6.8 L/100 km | 8.9 L/100 km |
| Restyling — 2.5 AT | 9.9 s | 209 km/h | 13.8 L/100 km | 6.6 L/100 km | 9.3 L/100 km |
The first-generation 2.0 MT Diesel records the quickest acceleration at 9.7 seconds and the lowest combined consumption at 6.1 L/100 km. Against the 143 hp Gasoline 2.0 MT, it is 0.2 seconds quicker to 100 km/h and consumes 2.1 L/100 km less on the combined cycle. Its 200 km/h top speed is nevertheless 7 km/h lower.
For buyers choosing only between the 143 hp Gasoline 2.0 transmissions, the 2.0 MT has the stronger figures. In either applicable period, it reaches 100 km/h 1.9 seconds sooner than the 2.0 AT, has an 8 km/h higher top speed, and uses 0.7 L/100 km less on the combined cycle. Its city and highway advantages are 1.0 and 0.5 L/100 km respectively.
The 2.5 AT has the highest stated top speed at 209 km/h. Compared with the 143 hp 2.0 AT, it adds 13 hp and 42 Nm, cuts 1.9 seconds from the 0–100 km/h time, and raises top speed by 10 km/h. Its combined consumption is 0.4 L/100 km higher. Compared with the 143 hp 2.0 MT, however, the 2.5 AT has the same 9.9-second acceleration time, a 2 km/h higher top speed, and combined consumption that is 1.1 L/100 km higher.
CO₂ output and environmental class are not measured for every listed version.
Chevrolet Epica weight, clearance, tank, and wheel sizes
| Period and version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Weight per horsepower | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First generation — 2.0 AT, 143 hp | 1460 kg | 1945 kg | 10.2 kg/hp | 150 mm | 65 L | 215/50 R17; 205/60 R16 |
| First generation — 2.0 MT, 143 hp | 1460 kg | 1945 kg | 10.2 kg/hp | 150 mm | 65 L | not measured |
| First generation — 2.0 MT, 150 hp Diesel | 1560 kg | 2045 kg | 10.4 kg/hp | 150 mm | 65 L | not measured |
| First generation — 2.5 AT, 156 hp | 1500 kg | 1985 kg | 9.6 kg/hp | 150 mm | 65 L | not measured |
| First generation — 2.0 AT, 131 hp | 1482 kg | 1925 kg | 11.3 kg/hp | 150 mm | 65 L | 205/65 R15; 205/60 R16; 215/50 R17 |
| Restyling — 2.0 MT | 1460 kg | 1945 kg | 10.2 kg/hp | 150 mm | 65 L | 205/60 R16; 215/50 R17 |
| Restyling — 2.0 AT | 1500 kg | 1985 kg | 10.5 kg/hp | 150 mm | 65 L | 205/60 R16; 215/50 R17 |
| Restyling — 2.5 AT | 1500 kg | 1985 kg | 9.6 kg/hp | 150 mm | 65 L | not measured |
The 2.5 AT has the best weight-to-power result at approximately 9.6 kg/hp. The 143 hp, 1460 kg Gasoline versions follow at approximately 10.2 kg/hp. Despite its extra power and torque, the 1560 kg Diesel carries approximately 10.4 kg per horsepower. The 131 hp 2.0 AT has the least favorable result at approximately 11.3 kg/hp.
Every version has 150 mm of ground clearance and a 65 L tank. Both front and rear suspension are Independent, spring designs across the range, while braking consists of Ventilated disc front brakes and Disc rear brakes. Overall exterior dimensions are not measured in the supplied data.
Which Chevrolet Epica version should you buy?
Choose the first-generation 2.0 MT Diesel if fuel economy and torque matter most. Its 6.1 L/100 km combined consumption is the lowest listed, its 320 Nm is the highest torque figure, and its 9.7-second acceleration is the quickest. The trade-off shown by the data is its 1560 kg kerb weight, the highest in the range, plus a 200 km/h top speed that trails both 143 hp Gasoline manual versions and the 2.5 AT.
Choose the 143 hp 2.0 MT if you want the best balance among the Gasoline specifications. Whether original or restyled, it combines a 9.9-second 0–100 km/h time, a 207 km/h top speed, and 8.2 L/100 km combined consumption. That makes it as quick to 100 km/h as the 2.5 AT while using 1.1 L/100 km less on the combined cycle.
Choose the 2.5 AT if an Automatic gearbox, stronger performance, and the highest top speed are priorities. It combines 156 hp, 237 Nm, a 9.9-second acceleration time, and 209 km/h. The restyled version changes the transmission from Automatic 5-speed to Automatic 6-speed, but the measured performance and consumption figures remain 9.9 seconds, 209 km/h, and 9.3 L/100 km combined.
Choose the 143 hp 2.0 AT when automatic convenience matters more than acceleration or consumption. The restyled car provides an Automatic 6-speed gearbox instead of the original Automatic 5-speed, but both record 11.8 seconds to 100 km/h, 199 km/h, and 8.9 L/100 km combined.
On the available numbers, the 131 hp 2.0 AT is the least compelling performance choice. It matches the 143 hp 2.0 AT’s 11.8-second acceleration time but has 12 hp and 14 Nm less, a top speed lower by 11 km/h, and combined consumption higher by 0.7 L/100 km.
Chevrolet Epica problems and reliability
Problems, reliability records, engine-oil requirements, engine-mount durability, maintenance costs, and repair history are not measured in the supplied data. Consequently, the specifications can identify the strongest version for performance or economy, but they cannot establish which Chevrolet Epica version is mechanically more reliable. A purchase decision should therefore treat condition and service history as separate questions for which this catalogue dataset provides no measurement.