Chrysler Saratoga: which version to buy (1989–1995)
The Chrysler Saratoga in this catalogue is one generation of sedan, sold from 1989-01-01 to 1995-12-31, with three named versions: 2.5 MT, 2.5 AT, and 3.0 AT. All three are Gasoline, FWD, and share the same 65 L tank.
The Chrysler Saratoga in this catalogue is one generation of sedan, sold from 1989-01-01 to 1995-12-31, with three named versions: 2.5 MT, 2.5 AT, and 3.0 AT. All three are Gasoline, FWD, and share the same 65 L tank. The buying choice is not “which generation” — there is only 1 generation — but which powertrain: a 2501 cm³ inline-4 with either a 5-speed Manual or a 3-speed Automatic, versus a 2972 cm³ V-shaped 6 with a 4-speed Automatic. Searches for 1952–1963 Chrysler Saratoga cars point at a different historical name; the numbers below apply only to this 1989–1995 sedan.
Generations: what actually changed between versions
1 generation (1989-01-01–1995-12-31) is a Sedan with 3 versions. There is no second generation and no restyling recorded as a separate generation in these data. Chassis pattern is the same on every version that lists it: Independent, spring at the front; Dependent, spring at the rear; Ventilated disc front brakes; Drum rear brakes. Ground clearance is 120 mm on 2.5 MT and 2.5 AT; it is not measured on 3.0 AT.
What the generation does change between versions is the engine and gearbox pairing, plus the measured mass and performance on two of the three cars.
Chrysler Saratoga specs and engine table
| Version | hp (kW @ rpm) | Nm @ rpm | Displacement (cm³) | Fuel | Cylinders / layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5 MT | 102 (75 @ 4800) | 183 @ 2800 | 2501 | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5 | FWD |
| 2.5 AT | 102 (75 @ 4800) | 183 @ 2800 | 2501 | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | Automatic, 3 | FWD |
| 3.0 AT | 143 (105 @ 5000) | 232 @ 2800 | 2972 | Gasoline, 92 | 6, V-shaped | No | Automatic, 4 | FWD |
All three use Distributed injection (multi-point) and 2 valves per cylinder. Compression is 9.0 on both 2.5 engines and 8.9 on 3.0 AT. Bore × stroke is 87.5 × 104 on the 2.5 and 91.1 × 76 on the 3.0. Engine location is not measured on any version.
Power per litre (arithmetic on the given figures): 2.5 MT and 2.5 AT make 102 hp from 2501 cm³ → 40.8 hp per litre. 3.0 AT makes 143 hp from 2972 cm³ → 48.1 hp per litre. The six-cylinder is not only larger; it is 7.3 hp/L denser.
Torque step: 232 − 183 = 49 Nm more on 3.0 AT (26.8% more), both peaks listed at 2800 rpm. Peak power arrives 200 rpm later on the 3.0 (5000 vs 4800).
Performance, mpg, and what is not measured
2.5 MT is the only version with a full measured economy set: 14 L/100 km city, 8 L/100 km highway, 9.7 L/100 km mixed. 0–100 km/h is 13.8 s; top speed is 165 km/h.
2.5 AT uses the same 102 hp / 183 Nm engine. 0–100 km/h is not measured. Top speed is not measured. City, highway, and mixed consumption are not measured. You cannot treat the 2.5 MT 13.8 s / 165 km/h / 9.7 L/100 km mixed as the automatic’s figures.
3.0 AT is the only automatic with a measured sprint and top speed: 11 s to 100 km/h and 182 km/h. That is 2.8 s quicker and 17 km/h faster than 2.5 MT. City, highway, and mixed consumption on 3.0 AT are not measured, so you cannot claim it uses more or less fuel than the 2.5 — only that it is stronger and faster where those two numbers exist.
CO₂ and eco class are not measured on all three versions.
Dimensions, weight, tank, wheels
Tank is 65 L on 2.5 MT, 2.5 AT, and 3.0 AT. Wheel sizes are not measured on any version. Gross vehicle weight is not measured on any version.
Kerb weight: 2.5 MT 1245 kg; 2.5 AT not measured; 3.0 AT 1346 kg. The 3.0 automatic is 101 kg heavier than the 2.5 manual (8.1% more mass).
Mass per horsepower: 2.5 MT 1245 / 102 = 12.2 kg/hp. 3.0 AT 1346 / 143 = 9.4 kg/hp. Despite the extra 101 kg, 3.0 AT carries 2.8 kg less per horsepower — that is the mechanical reason the 11 s / 182 km/h pair beats 13.8 s / 165 km/h.
Ground clearance: 120 mm on both 2.5 versions; not measured on 3.0 AT. Do not assume the 3.0 sits at 120 mm.
Which version to choose
There is no generation-to-generation upgrade path: 1 generation, three FWD sedans, same tank, same brake and spring layout where listed. The extra money (whatever it was; prices are not in these data) buys a gearbox and, on one car, a larger engine.
Choose 2.5 MT if you want the only fully measured 2.5 and the only Manual. It is the lightest listed kerb (1245 kg), the only 5-speed, and the only version with city/highway/mixed figures (14 / 8 / 9.7 L/100 km). 102 hp and 183 Nm, 13.8 s, 165 km/h. If you need a documented 0–100 and a documented mixed consumption on the four-cylinder, this is the only row that has both.
Choose 2.5 AT if you want the same 102 hp engine without a clutch, and you accept missing numbers. Engine, fuel, cylinders, layout, boost, drive, tank, and 120 mm clearance match 2.5 MT. The gearbox is Automatic with 3 speeds instead of Manual with 5. Acceleration, top speed, all three consumption figures, and kerb weight are not measured. Relative to 3.0 AT you give up 41 hp (143 − 102) and 49 Nm, and you also give up a fourth Automatic ratio (3 vs 4). Relative to 2.5 MT you give up two gears and every published performance and economy number. Buy 2.5 AT only for the Automatic + 2.5 pairing itself, not because the catalogue proves it is slower or thirstier — it simply does not measure those.
Choose 3.0 AT if the decision is “more power per kilo and a measured automatic sprint.” 143 hp vs 102 hp is +41 hp (+40.2%). Displacement 2972 vs 2501 is +471 cm³. Layout is 6, V-shaped, not 4, Inline. Automatic has 4 speeds, not 3. 0–100 11 s vs 13.8 s on 2.5 MT (−2.8 s). Top speed 182 vs 165 km/h (+17). Kerb 1346 vs 1245 kg (+101 kg) still yields 9.4 vs 12.2 kg/hp. Compression is slightly lower (8.9 vs 9.0). Fuel is still Gasoline, 92; boost is still No; drive is still FWD; tank is still 65 L. What you do not get from this row: measured mpg, measured clearance, measured wheels, measured gross weight. If economy is the buying criterion, 3.0 AT cannot win or lose on paper because those litres are not measured.
Head-to-head in one line each
- 2.5 MT vs 2.5 AT: identical 102 hp, 183 Nm, 2501 cm³, 4 Inline, No boost. Difference is Manual 5 vs Automatic 3, plus 2.5 AT has not measured 0–100, top speed, consumption, and kerb.
- 2.5 MT vs 3.0 AT: +41 hp, +49 Nm, +471 cm³, 4 Inline → 6 V-shaped, Manual 5 → Automatic 4, +101 kg, −2.8 s to 100 km/h, +17 km/h top speed; mixed 9.7 L/100 km on the 2.5 vs not measured on the 3.0.
- 2.5 AT vs 3.0 AT: both Automatic FWD Gasoline. 3 vs 4 speeds; 102 vs 143 hp; 183 vs 232 Nm; 4 Inline vs 6 V-shaped; 2501 vs 2972 cm³. Sprint and top speed exist only for 3.0 AT (11 s, 182 km/h). Clearance 120 mm only on 2.5 AT; not measured on 3.0 AT. Kerb only on 3.0 AT (1346 kg); not measured on 2.5 AT.
Practical pick from these numbers alone: 2.5 MT for the documented lightest 2.5, 5 gears, and the only mpg set; 3.0 AT for the only automatic with a published 11 s / 182 km/h and the best kg/hp (9.4); 2.5 AT only if the 3-speed Automatic on the 102 hp engine is the requirement and you can live with not measured performance, economy, and kerb. Reliability and problems are not in these data; do not infer them from hp or kg.