Chevrolet Vivant

Chevrolet Vivant: Which Version Should You Buy?

The Chevrolet Vivant was produced from 2000 to 2008 as a Compact Van in a single generation. Its four listed versions divide into two engine groups: two 1.6 MT variants with 90 hp or 105 hp, and two 121 hp versions named 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT. The 105 hp 1.6 MT is the balanced choice because it matches the other 1.6 MT’s 8.3 l/100 km combined consumption while offering 15 hp more.

The Chevrolet Vivant was produced from 2000 to 2008 as a Compact Van in a single generation. Its four listed versions divide into two engine groups: two 1.6 MT variants with 90 hp or 105 hp, and two 121 hp versions named 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT. The 105 hp 1.6 MT is the balanced choice because it matches the other 1.6 MT’s 8.3 l/100 km combined consumption while offering 15 hp more. The 2.0 MT is the performance choice, reaching 100 km/h in 10.3 seconds and 180 km/h. The 2.0 AT is the only Automatic option, but it has the highest consumption at 10.8 l/100 km combined.

Chevrolet Vivant generations and versions

The Chevrolet Vivant has one generation, so there is no choice between generations in the supplied catalogue data. The 1 generation ran from 2000 to 2008, used the Compact Van body, and contained four versions. Consequently, searches for a Chevrolet Vivant 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008 all fall within the recorded production period. A Chevrolet Vivant 2009, 2011, or 2012 is outside that period in this data. No restyling or second generation is listed, so no generation-to-generation mechanical change can be established.

Chevrolet Vivant engine and transmission specs

Every listed Chevrolet Vivant engine is Gasoline, front-mounted and transverse, with 4 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, distributed multi-point injection, and no boost. Every version also has FWD. The meaningful buying decisions are therefore engine output, Manual versus Automatic transmission, and the resulting differences in performance and fuel consumption.

The 90 hp 1.6 MT produces about 56.3 hp per litre, while the 105 hp 1.6 MT produces about 65.7 hp per litre. Both 121 hp 2.0 versions produce about 60.6 hp per litre. Thus, the 105 hp 1.6 MT has the highest specific output, while the 2.0 MT provides the greatest torque at 178 Nm.

The two 1.6 MT versions share 145 Nm at 4200 rpm, despite the 15 hp difference. The 2.0 MT adds 33 Nm over either 1.6 version; the 2.0 AT adds 31 Nm. Between the 2.0 versions, the Manual has 2 Nm more torque even though both are rated at 121 hp.

Chevrolet Vivant performance, fuel economy, and mpg-related figures

The strongest performance case belongs to the 2.0 MT. It accelerates to 100 km/h 1.9 seconds sooner than either 1.6 MT, and its 180 km/h top speed is 13 km/h higher. Compared with the 2.0 AT, the 2.0 MT is 1.4 seconds quicker to 100 km/h and 7 km/h faster at maximum speed.

That performance carries a moderate consumption increase over the 1.6 versions. The 2.0 MT uses 0.7 l/100 km more combined than either 1.6 MT. Against the 105 hp 1.6 MT, it consumes 1.2 l/100 km more in the city and 0.9 l/100 km more on the highway.

The 105 hp 1.6 MT is the better of the two 1.6 choices on the available economy figures. It has the same 8.3 l/100 km combined result and the same recorded performance as the 90 hp version, but city consumption is 0.2 l/100 km lower and highway consumption is 0.4 l/100 km lower.

The 2.0 AT trades efficiency and some performance for the only Automatic gearbox in the range. Compared with the 2.0 MT, it uses 3.1 l/100 km more in the city, 1 l/100 km more on the highway, and 1.8 l/100 km more combined. MPG figures are not measured in the supplied data; fuel consumption is recorded only in l/100 km.

Chevrolet Vivant dimensions, weight, and practical specifications

Exterior length, width, height, and wheelbase are not measured in the supplied data. Wheel sizes are also not measured for any Chevrolet Vivant version. All four versions have 180 mm of ground clearance and a 60-litre fuel tank.

The 105 hp 1.6 MT weighs only 3 kg more than the 90 hp 1.6 MT, yet its weight-to-power figure improves by about 2 kg/hp. The 2.0 MT is 35 kg heavier than the 105 hp 1.6 MT, but its weight-to-power ratio improves from about 12.1 to 10.8 kg/hp. The 2.0 AT kerb weight is not measured, so its weight-to-power ratio cannot be calculated from the available data.

Every version uses independent spring suspension at both ends, Disc front brakes, and Drum rear brakes. Because those specifications, the ground clearance, and the tank capacity do not vary, none provides an advantage over another in those areas.

Chevrolet Vivant problems and reliability

Problems, reliability records, maintenance costs, service intervals, and oxygen-sensor specifications are not measured in the supplied data. The data therefore cannot support a claim that one Chevrolet Vivant engine or gearbox is more reliable than another. It also does not identify an original oxygen sensor or provide a part number.

The defensible comparison is limited to the recorded specifications. Choosing the 2.0 AT solely because it is Automatic means accepting higher measured fuel consumption and slower measured acceleration than the 2.0 MT. Choosing between the two 1.6 MT versions favors the 105 hp version numerically, but reliability cannot be used to separate them.

Which Chevrolet Vivant version should you buy?

Choose the 1.6 MT (105 hp) for the strongest all-round balance. It supplies 15 hp more than the 90 hp 1.6 MT, carries only 3 kg of additional kerb weight, and retains the same 8.3 l/100 km combined consumption. Its city and highway figures are also slightly lower, although both 1.6 versions share the same recorded 12.2-second acceleration time and 167 km/h top speed.

Choose the 2.0 MT when performance matters most. Its 121 hp and 178 Nm are the highest paired outputs in the range, and it has the quickest 0–100 km/h time at 10.3 seconds and the highest top speed at 180 km/h. Its 9 l/100 km combined consumption is only 0.7 l/100 km above either 1.6 version.

Choose the 2.0 AT only when an Automatic gearbox is the deciding requirement. It is the sole 4-speed Automatic version, but its 10.8 l/100 km combined consumption is the highest, and it is slower than the 2.0 MT despite sharing the same 121 hp rating.

The 90 hp 1.6 MT has no numerical advantage over the 105 hp 1.6 MT in acceleration, top speed, combined consumption, gross weight, clearance, or tank capacity. Without price or reliability data, there is no evidence-based reason to prefer it over the 105 hp version. Since prices are not measured, the question of what additional purchase money buys cannot be quantified; on specifications alone, the 105 hp 1.6 MT is the sensible default, the 2.0 MT is the performance upgrade, and the 2.0 AT is the gearbox-led choice.