Daewoo Musso

Daewoo Musso: which version to buy

The Daewoo Musso in this catalogue is 1 generation (1999-01-01 to 2002-12-31), SUV 5-doors, 10 versions, all AWD.

The Daewoo Musso in this catalogue is 1 generation (1999-01-01 to 2002-12-31), SUV 5-doors, 10 versions, all AWD. There is no second generation here to “step up to,” so the buying question is only which of the ten named versions matches the job: the 3.2 MT 220 hp for the shortest 0–100 and the lowest kerb mass per horsepower among measured petrol cars, the 2.3 MT 140 hp as the middle petrol that still hits 12 s to 100 km/h, the 2.9 MT 129 hp Turbo Diesel (or the 2.9 AT 129 hp with the same engine) for the lowest mixed consumption that is measured, and the 2.3 MT 77 hp Diesel only if you accept 25 s to 100 km/h in exchange for 1795 kg kerb mass. Wheel sizes are not measured on every version.

Specs table: all 10 versions (exact names)

The catalogue name 2.0 AT is kept exactly as in the data. The gearbox field on that row is Manual, 5 gears — not Automatic. Treat the name as the page anchor and the gearbox field as the measured transmission.

Engine: petrol 2.0 vs 2.3 vs 3.2

There are two 2.0 MT cars. They share 1998 cc, Gasoline, 4 Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, No boost, distributed injection (multi-point), compression 9.5, bore × stroke 89.9 × 78.7, fuel 95, Manual 5, AWD. The 129 hp unit is +3 hp and +2 Nm versus 126 hp (177 vs 179 Nm), peaks at 5500 rpm instead of 5600, and 0–100 is 15 s versus 18 s — 3 s quicker for 3 hp. Mixed consumption is 12.1 L/100 km versus 12.0; city 16.7 versus 16.4; highway 10.1 versus 9.8. Power per litre: 126 / 1.998 ≈ 63.1 hp/L versus 129 / 1.998 ≈ 64.6 hp/L. Kerb mass is the same 1890 kg, so mass per horsepower is 1890 / 126 ≈ 15.0 kg/hp versus 1890 / 129 ≈ 14.7 kg/hp. If the two 2.0 MT cars cost the same used, the 129 hp row is the one that moves; the 126 hp row is 0.1 L/100 km better mixed and nothing else.

The 2.3 MT 140 hp (2295 cc Gasoline) is +11 hp and +17 Nm versus the 129 hp 2.0 MT, 0–100 12 s versus 15 s (3 s), top speed 176 versus 168 km/h (+8). Mixed consumption is 12.0 versus 12.1. Power per litre falls to 140 / 2.295 ≈ 61.0 hp/L — the extra displacement is doing the work, not a denser tune. Compression is 10.4 versus 9.5. Kerb mass stays 1890 kg, so 1890 / 140 ≈ 13.5 kg/hp. Among the four-cylinder petrol manuals, 2.3 MT 140 hp is the one that buys acceleration without a fuel penalty on the mixed figure.

The 3.2 MT 220 hp (3199 cc, 6 Inline, No boost) is +80 hp and +111 Nm versus the 2.3 MT 140 hp. 0–100 10.2 s versus 12 s (1.8 s). Top speed 190 versus 176 km/h. Mixed 12.3 versus 12.0 — 0.3 L/100 km for 80 hp. Power per litre 220 / 3.199 ≈ 68.8 hp/L, the densest petrol here. Kerb 1935 kg is +45 kg versus 1890, but mass per horsepower is 1935 / 220 ≈ 8.8 kg/hp, the lowest measured on the model. Peak torque 307 Nm at 4000 rpm is 111 Nm above the 140 hp 2.3 MT at the same 4000 rpm. If the question is “what does the big engine buy,” the answer in these numbers is 1.8 s to 100 km/h, 14 km/h of top speed, and 8.8 kg/hp instead of 13.5, for 0.3 L/100 km mixed and 45 kg kerb.

3.2 AT 220 hp is the same 3199 cc, 220 hp, 307 Nm, Gasoline, 6 Inline, No boost. Gearbox is Automatic 4. 0–100 is 12.4 s versus 10.2 s on 3.2 MT — 2.2 s slower, matching the 2.3 MT 140 hp Manual to within 0.4 s. Top speed stays 190 km/h. City, highway, and mixed consumption on 3.2 AT are not measured. Kerb mass is not measured. Gross mass is still 2520 kg. You cannot claim an economy or weight reason to pick 3.2 AT; the measured difference is gearbox type and 2.2 s to 100 km/h.

2.0 AT 129 hp matches the 129 hp 2.0 MT on 1998 cc, 129 hp, 179 Nm, 5500 / 4000 rpm, Gasoline, 4 Inline, No boost. The gearbox field is Manual 5. 0–100 is 16 s versus 15 s on 2.0 MT 129 hp. Top speed 160 versus 168 km/h. Mixed 10.0 versus 12.1, city 14.0 versus 16.7, highway 7.6 versus 10.1. Kerb 1850 kg versus 1890 (−40 kg), 1850 / 129 ≈ 14.3 kg/hp. On the numbers written, 2.0 AT 129 hp is the petrol 2.0 that uses less fuel and weighs less; it is not the quicker of the two 129 hp 2.0 cars.

Engine: diesel 2.3 vs 2.9, naturally aspirated vs Turbo

2.3 MT 77 hp (2299 cc Diesel, 4 Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, No boost, compression 22, 89 × 92.4) is the least powerful version: 77 hp at 3800 rpm, 144 Nm at 2300. 0–100 25 s, top speed 135 km/h — both the slowest on the list. Mixed 9.0, city 12.1, highway 7.9. Kerb 1795 kg is the lightest measured (−95 kg versus 1890 petrol 2.0/2.3). Mass per horsepower 1795 / 77 ≈ 23.3 kg/hp, the worst here. Power per litre 77 / 2.299 ≈ 33.5 hp/L. Buy this only if the 9.0 mixed figure and 1795 kg matter more than a 25 s sprint.

2.9 MT 98 hp (2874 cc Diesel, 5 Inline, 2 valves, No boost, compression 22, same 89 × 92.4) is +21 hp and +47 Nm versus the 77 hp 2.3 MT. 0–100 21 s versus 25 s (4 s). Top speed 143 versus 135 km/h. Mixed 9.3 versus 9.0 — you pay 0.3 L/100 km for those 4 s. Kerb 1815 kg (+20 kg), 1815 / 98 ≈ 18.5 kg/hp. Power per litre 98 / 2.874 ≈ 34.1 hp/L, almost the same density as the 77 hp diesel; the extra 575 cc is the whole story.

2.9 MT 129 hp adds Turbo to the same 2874 cc, 5 Inline, 2 valves, compression 22. Versus the 98 hp 2.9 MT: +31 hp, +69 Nm (260 vs 191), torque peak 2200 rpm versus 2400. 0–100 16 s versus 21 s (5 s). Top speed 160 versus 143 km/h. Mixed 8.9 versus 9.3 — 0.4 L/100 km less while faster. City 12.0 versus 12.5, highway 7.6 versus 8.4. Kerb 1850 kg (+35 kg vs 98 hp). Mass per horsepower 1850 / 129 ≈ 14.3 kg/hp, in the same band as the 129 hp petrol 2.0. Power per litre 129 / 2.874 ≈ 44.9 hp/L versus 34.1 without Turbo. Among diesels, this is the version that buys both speed and economy versus the two naturally aspirated rows.

2.9 AT 129 hp is the same 2874 cc Turbo Diesel, 129 hp, 260 Nm. Gearbox Automatic 4. 0–100 16 s, top speed 160 km/h, mixed 8.9, city 12.0, highway 7.6, kerb 1850 kg — identical measured performance and economy to 2.9 MT 129 hp. The arithmetic difference is gears: 4 Automatic versus 5 Manual. If you want this engine and do not want a clutch, 2.9 AT does not give up a measured second or a measured litre versus 2.9 MT 129 hp. Contrast 3.2 AT, which does give up 2.2 s versus 3.2 MT.

Performance and mpg (0–100, top speed, consumption)

Fastest 0–100: 3.2 MT 220 hp 10.2 s. Next: 2.3 MT 140 hp 12 s. 3.2 AT 220 hp 12.4 s. Then 2.0 MT 129 hp 15 s; 2.0 AT 129 hp, 2.9 MT 129 hp, and 2.9 AT 129 hp all 16 s. 2.0 MT 126 hp 18 s. 2.9 MT 98 hp 21 s. 2.3 MT 77 hp 25 s.

Top speed: 3.2 MT and 3.2 AT 190 km/h; 2.3 MT 140 hp 176; both 2.0 MT petrol manuals 168; 2.0 AT 129 hp, 2.9 MT 129 hp, and 2.9 AT 129 hp 160; 2.9 MT 98 hp 143; 2.3 MT 77 hp 135.

Lowest mixed consumption that is measured: 2.9 MT 129 hp and 2.9 AT 129 hp 8.9 L/100 km. Then 2.3 MT 77 hp 9.0, 2.9 MT 98 hp 9.3, 2.0 AT 129 hp 10.0, 2.0 MT 126 hp and 2.3 MT 140 hp 12.0, 2.0 MT 129 hp 12.1, 3.2 MT 220 hp 12.3. 3.2 AT mixed, city, and highway are not measured.

Highway: turbo 2.9 manuals/auto and 2.0 AT 129 hp share 7.6 L/100 km, the lowest highway figure in the data. City: turbo 2.9 12.0; 2.3 MT 77 hp 12.1; 2.9 MT 98 hp 12.5; 2.0 AT 14.0; petrol 2.0/2.3 manuals 16.4–16.7; 3.2 MT 16.9. 3.2 AT city/highway not measured.

CO2 and eco class: not measured on all ten.

Dimensions, weight, tank, ground clearance

Gross mass is 2520 kg on every version. Ground clearance is 200 mm on every version. Tank is 80 L on every version. Wheel sizes are not measured on every version. Front suspension Independent, torsion, rear Independent, spring, front and rear brakes Disc — same labels on all ten.

Kerb mass (measured): 2.3 MT 77 hp 1795 kg; 2.9 MT 98 hp 1815; 2.0 AT 129 hp, 2.9 MT 129 hp, 2.9 AT 129 hp 1850; 2.0 MT 126 hp, 2.0 MT 129 hp, 2.3 MT 140 hp 1890; 3.2 MT 220 hp 1935. 3.2 AT kerb is not measured. Payload from the measured kerbs: 2520 − 1795 = 725 kg on 2.3 MT 77 hp; 2520 − 1935 = 585 kg on 3.2 MT 220 hp. The lightest diesel carries 140 kg more payload than the heaviest measured petrol.

Which version to choose

One generation only (1999–2002). Nothing later in this dataset restyles the chassis, changes clearance, or adds a different body. Choice is engine, boost, and gearbox.

• Want the shortest 0–100 and the most hp per kilogram: 3.2 MT 220 hp — 10.2 s, 8.8 kg/hp, 190 km/h, mixed 12.3.
• Want the 220 hp engine without a clutch: 3.2 AT 220 hp — same 190 km/h, 12.4 s to 100; consumption and kerb not measured.
• Want petrol pace without the 3.2: 2.3 MT 140 hp — 12 s, 176 km/h, mixed 12.0, same 1890 kg as the 2.0 manuals.
• Choosing between the two 2.0 MT names: take 2.0 MT 129 hp for 15 s versus 18 s; take 2.0 MT 126 hp only for 0.1 L/100 km mixed.
• Want the 129 hp petrol with the lowest measured petrol mixed figure: 2.0 AT 129 hp — mixed 10.0, kerb 1850 kg, 0–100 16 s, top 160 km/h; gearbox field Manual 5.
• Want diesel economy with usable pace: 2.9 MT 129 hp Turbo or 2.9 AT 129 hp — mixed 8.9, 0–100 16 s, 160 km/h; they match on every measured speed and fuel number. Pick Manual 5 vs Automatic 4.
• Want diesel without Turbo: 2.9 MT 98 hp is 4 s quicker to 100 than 2.3 MT 77 hp and 0.3 L/100 km worse mixed; 2.3 MT 77 hp is the lightest (1795 kg) and the slowest (25 s, 135 km/h).

What extra displacement buys, in this file: 297 cc from 2.0 129 hp to 2.3 MT 140 hp buys 11 hp and 3 s; 904 cc from 2.3 140 hp to 3.2 MT 220 hp buys 80 hp and 1.8 s. What Turbo buys on 2.9 diesel: 31 hp, 69 Nm, 5 s, and −0.4 L/100 km mixed versus 2.9 MT 98 hp. Drive is not a differentiator: every row is AWD.