Daewoo Rezzo: Which Version to Buy and Why
The Daewoo Rezzo was produced from 2000 to 2008 as a Compact Van in a single generation. Its catalogue contains 11 Gasoline versions, all with FWD, naturally aspirated inline 4-cylinder engines, a 60-litre fuel tank and 180 mm of ground clearance. Choosing among them mainly means balancing the 1.6 MT, the 1.8-litre manual and automatic versions, and several distinct 2.0-litre specifications.
The Daewoo Rezzo was produced from 2000 to 2008 as a Compact Van in a single generation. Its catalogue contains 11 Gasoline versions, all with FWD, naturally aspirated inline 4-cylinder engines, a 60-litre fuel tank and 180 mm of ground clearance. Choosing among them mainly means balancing the 1.6 MT, the 1.8-litre manual and automatic versions, and several distinct 2.0-litre specifications. The key point is that identical version names do not always identify identical engines: the catalogue includes 2.0 MT models with 105, 121, 128 and 136 hp, plus 2.0 AT models with the same four power ratings.
Daewoo Rezzo generations and versions
The only Daewoo Rezzo generation covered here ran from 2000 to 2008. It used a Compact Van body and offered 11 versions. Because there is no second generation in the data, the purchasing decision is entirely between powertrain specifications rather than between newer and older generations.
Daewoo Rezzo engine specs
Every listed engine is Gasoline, uses an Inline layout with 4 cylinders, has no boost and features distributed multi-point injection. The gearbox choices are a 5-speed Manual or a 4-speed Automatic, and every version has FWD.
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6 MT | 106 hp (78 kW) | 145 Nm | 1,598 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.8 MT | 101 hp (74 kW) | 146 Nm | 1,796 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.8 AT | 101 hp (74 kW) | 146 Nm | 1,796 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (105 hp) | 105 hp (77 kW) | 169 Nm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (105 hp) | 105 hp (77 kW) | 169 Nm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (121 hp) | 121 hp (89 kW) | 176 Nm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (121 hp) | 121 hp (89 kW) | 176 Nm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (128 hp) | 128 hp (94 kW) | 176 Nm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (128 hp) | 128 hp (94 kW) | 176 Nm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (136 hp) | 136 hp (100 kW) | 184 Nm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (136 hp) | 136 hp (100 kW) | 184 Nm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
Power per litre helps separate engines whose names otherwise look alike. The 1.6 MT produces about 66.3 hp per litre. The 1.8 MT and 1.8 AT each produce about 56.2 hp per litre. Among the 2.0-litre choices, output rises from about 52.6 hp per litre in the 105 hp specification to about 60.6, 64.1 and 68.1 hp per litre in the 121, 128 and 136 hp specifications.
The 105 hp 2.0 engine has 2 valves per cylinder. The 121 hp engine has 4, the 128 hp engine has 2, and the 136 hp engine has 4. This makes the power figure essential when identifying a 2.0 MT or 2.0 AT; the version name and displacement alone are insufficient.
Daewoo Rezzo performance and fuel economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6 MT | 11.8 s | 167 km/h | 11 L/100 km | 6.7 L/100 km | 8.3 L/100 km |
| 1.8 MT | 12 s | 170 km/h | 12.5 L/100 km | 7.2 L/100 km | 9.3 L/100 km |
| 1.8 AT | 15 s | 160 km/h | 12.9 L/100 km | 7.9 L/100 km | 9.7 L/100 km |
| 2.0 MT (105 hp) | 10.5 s | 180 km/h | 11.5 L/100 km | 7 L/100 km | 8.4 L/100 km |
| 2.0 AT (105 hp) | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (121 hp) | 10.5 s | 188 km/h | 12.9 L/100 km | 7.9 L/100 km | 9.7 L/100 km |
| 2.0 AT (121 hp) | 12 s | 168 km/h | 13.3 L/100 km | 7.6 L/100 km | 9.7 L/100 km |
| 2.0 MT (128 hp) | 10.8 s | not measured | 12 L/100 km | 7.2 L/100 km | 9 L/100 km |
| 2.0 AT (128 hp) | 12.4 s | not measured | 15.1 L/100 km | 8.2 L/100 km | 10.8 L/100 km |
| 2.0 MT (136 hp) | 13.4 s | 200 km/h | 12 L/100 km | 8 L/100 km | 9 L/100 km |
| 2.0 AT (136 hp) | not measured | 185 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
For the lowest recorded combined consumption, the 1.6 MT leads at 8.3 L/100 km. The 2.0 MT (105 hp) is only 0.1 L/100 km higher, yet it accelerates to 100 km/h 1.3 seconds sooner and reaches a top speed 13 km/h higher. It also delivers 24 Nm more torque, making it the strongest numerical compromise between measured economy and performance.
The automatic gearbox carries a clear penalty where directly comparable figures exist. The 1.8 AT is 3 seconds slower to 100 km/h than the 1.8 MT, its top speed is 10 km/h lower, and it consumes an additional 0.4 L/100 km combined. The 2.0 AT (121 hp) is 1.5 seconds slower than the 2.0 MT (121 hp) and 20 km/h slower at maximum speed, although both record 9.7 L/100 km combined. The 2.0 AT (128 hp) is 1.6 seconds slower than the matching 2.0 MT and uses 1.8 L/100 km more in the combined cycle.
The 2.0 MT (136 hp) has the highest measured top speed at 200 km/h, but its recorded 0–100 km/h time is 13.4 seconds. Buyers should treat those as separate measured catalogue figures rather than infer that the highest-powered version also has the quickest acceleration. The quickest recorded time is 10.5 seconds, shared by the 2.0 MT (105 hp) and 2.0 MT (121 hp).
Daewoo Rezzo dimensions, weight and tank capacity
External dimensions and wheel sizes are not measured in the supplied data. Every version has 180 mm of ground clearance and a 60-litre fuel tank.
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6 MT | 1,245 kg | 1,825 kg | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 1.8 MT | 1,230 kg | 1,725 kg | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 1.8 AT | not measured | 1,725 kg | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (105 hp) | 1,260 kg | not measured | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 2.0 AT (105 hp) | not measured | not measured | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (121 hp) | 1,381 kg | 1,862 kg | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 2.0 AT (121 hp) | not measured | 1,862 kg | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (128 hp) | 1,392 kg | 1,862 kg | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 2.0 AT (128 hp) | not measured | 1,862 kg | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (136 hp) | 1,270 kg | 1,745 kg | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
| 2.0 AT (136 hp) | not measured | 1,745 kg | 180 mm | 60 L | not measured |
Among versions with measured kerb weight, the 1.8 MT is lightest at 1,230 kg. Its weight-to-power ratio is about 12.2 kg per hp. The 1.6 MT improves this to about 11.7 kg per hp, while the 2.0 MT specifications record about 12.0 kg per hp at 105 hp, 11.4 at 121 hp, 10.9 at 128 hp and 9.3 at 136 hp. On this calculation, the 2.0 MT (136 hp) has the strongest power-to-weight position, even though its recorded acceleration result does not lead the range.
Which Daewoo Rezzo version should you buy?
The 2.0 MT (105 hp) is the most balanced choice from the measured specifications. Compared with the 1.6 MT, it gives 24 Nm more torque, cuts the 0–100 km/h time by 1.3 seconds and adds 13 km/h to top speed, while combined consumption rises by just 0.1 L/100 km. It also uses 95 fuel, as does the 1.6 MT.
Choose the 1.6 MT when minimum measured fuel consumption matters most. Its 8.3 L/100 km combined and 6.7 L/100 km highway figures are the lowest in the catalogue, and its 106 hp output is 5 hp greater than either 1.8 version despite its smaller displacement.
The 1.8 MT has little numerical advantage over the 1.6 MT: it adds only 1 Nm, loses 5 hp and consumes 1 L/100 km more combined. Its measured benefit is a top speed 3 km/h higher. The 1.8 AT makes sense specifically for a buyer who requires Automatic transmission, but its measured acceleration, top speed and consumption are all less favourable than those of the 1.8 MT.
Among the stronger engines, the 2.0 MT (121 hp) combines the quickest recorded acceleration time with a measured 188 km/h top speed. The 2.0 MT (128 hp) adds 7 hp without adding torque, reduces combined consumption by 0.7 L/100 km, but takes 0.3 seconds longer to reach 100 km/h; its top speed is not measured. The 2.0 MT (136 hp) adds 8 hp and 8 Nm over the 128 hp version and reaches the range’s highest measured speed, though its recorded acceleration is 2.6 seconds slower.
For an Automatic, the 2.0 AT (121 hp) is the best-documented option: acceleration, top speed and all three consumption figures are measured. The 2.0 AT (128 hp) offers 7 hp more but uses 1.1 L/100 km more combined and takes 0.4 seconds longer to reach 100 km/h. The 2.0 AT (105 hp) lacks measured performance and economy figures, while the 2.0 AT (136 hp) has a measured top speed of 185 km/h but no measured acceleration or fuel-consumption figures. Those omissions make a complete numerical comparison impossible.
No prices, reliability records or problem data are supplied, so the extra money required for any version—and whether that premium is justified—cannot be measured here. Based strictly on the catalogue numbers, the 2.0 MT (105 hp) is the rational all-round choice, the 1.6 MT is the economy choice, the 2.0 MT (136 hp) is the highest-output choice, and the 2.0 AT (121 hp) is the clearest Automatic choice.