Daewoo Royale: which version to buy
The Daewoo Royale was sold in one generation from 1981-01-01 to 1992-12-31 as a Sedan with two catalogue versions: 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT. Both share the same 1979 cm³ Gasoline engine (100 hp / 74 kW at 5200 rpm, 156 Nm at 3800 rpm), the same 1260 kg kerb weight, the same 65 L tank, the same 180 mm ground clearance, and the same RWD layout.
The Daewoo Royale was sold in one generation from 1981-01-01 to 1992-12-31 as a Sedan with two catalogue versions: 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT. Both share the same 1979 cm³ Gasoline engine (100 hp / 74 kW at 5200 rpm, 156 Nm at 3800 rpm), the same 1260 kg kerb weight, the same 65 L tank, the same 180 mm ground clearance, and the same RWD layout. The buying choice is therefore not “which engine” or “which generation.” It is which gearbox you want: a 3-speed Automatic on 2.0 AT, or a 5-speed Manual on 2.0 MT. Top speed is measured only on 2.0 AT (170 km/h). On 2.0 MT top speed is not measured. 0–100 km/h, fuel consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight, and wheel size are not measured on either version.
Specs that decide the purchase
| Version | hp | Nm | Displacement (cm³) | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 AT | 100 | 156 | 1979 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Automatic (3) | RWD |
| 2.0 MT | 100 | 156 | 1979 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual (5) | RWD |
Both versions use a Carburetor, 2 valves per cylinder, compression ratio 9, bore × stroke 95 × 69.8, and fuel 92. Engine position is not measured on either version.
Which generation changed what
There is one generation only (kluch 1215 in the source set: 1 generation). Production start and stop are the same for the generation and for both versions: 1981-01-01 through 1992-12-31. Body type is Sedan for the whole run. There is no later generation to compare, no restyling listed as a separate generation, and no change in power, torque, displacement, kerb weight, tank, or clearance between the two versions. What did not change is as important as what did: if you are choosing “an older Royale versus a newer Royale,” the catalogue numbers do not give a later engine, a later body, or a later drivetrain. The only numbered difference between the two cars you can actually order from this list is the gearbox (Automatic 3 versus Manual 5) and the fact that maximum speed is published for 2.0 AT only.
Engine: same power, same litre, same weight
Power per litre is identical because the engine is identical:
100 hp ÷ (1979 / 1000) = 50.5 hp per litre on both 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT.
Kilowatts match as well: 74 kW on both, which is 74 ÷ 1.979 ≈ 37.4 kW per litre.
Torque per litre is 156 ÷ 1.979 ≈ 78.8 Nm per litre on both.
Weight per horsepower is also the same:
1260 kg ÷ 100 hp = 12.6 kg per hp on both versions.
Weight per kilowatt: 1260 ÷ 74 ≈ 17.0 kg per kW.
There is no “stronger” Royale in this catalogue. There is no turbo version (Boost: No on both). There is no extra cylinder count, no different cylinder layout, and no different displacement. Buying 2.0 AT instead of 2.0 MT does not buy more horsepower, more newton-metres, or a lighter kerb weight. The extra money, if any, buys the Automatic 3-speed and a published 170 km/h top speed figure. It does not buy a different engine.
Peak power and peak torque sit at the same crank speeds on both cars: 5200 rpm for 100 hp and 3800 rpm for 156 Nm. That gap (5200 − 3800 = 1400 rpm) is the same whichever version you pick. You are not choosing a high-rev map versus a low-rev map. You are choosing how those same peaks are split across gears: three Automatic ratios versus five Manual ratios.
Gearbox: the only real fork in the data
2.0 AT — Automatic, 3 gears, RWD, top speed 170 km/h. 2.0 MT — Manual, 5 gears, RWD, top speed not measured.
Arithmetic on the gear counts: 2.0 MT has 5 − 3 = 2 more forward gears than 2.0 AT. That is the whole mechanical difference the numbers describe. Drive is RWD on both, so you are not choosing between RWD and another layout.
What the extra gears can mean, using only these figures: the same 100 hp and 156 Nm are spread across five Manual steps instead of three Automatic steps. The catalogue does not measure 0–100 km/h on either car, so you cannot claim a quicker sprint for the Manual from this data. You also cannot claim a higher top speed for the Manual, because that value is not measured. The only measured speed in the set is 2.0 AT at 170 km/h.
If your priority is a published maximum speed, 2.0 AT is the only version that has one. If your priority is more ratios for the same 100 hp, 2.0 MT is the only version that has five gears. If your priority is Automatic, there is only one Automatic: 2.0 AT.
Performance and economy (mpg, 0–100, top speed)
0–100 km/h is not measured on 2.0 AT. 0–100 km/h is not measured on 2.0 MT.
You cannot rank the two versions on acceleration from this catalogue. Anyone claiming a 0–100 time for a Daewoo Royale 2.0 AT or 2.0 MT is using a number that is not in this data.
Top speed:
- 2.0 AT: 170 km/h
- 2.0 MT: not measured
Fuel consumption (city, highway, mixed) is not measured on 2.0 AT. Fuel consumption (city, highway, mixed) is not measured on 2.0 MT. CO2 is not measured on either version. Eco class is not measured on either version.
So “mpg” and “fuel economy” cannot be used as a buying filter here. The tank is 65 L on both cars, so range cannot be calculated without a consumption figure. The engine is Gasoline, Carburetor, fuel 92, Boost No — the same on both — so you are not choosing a leaner injection system or a different octane from this list.
What you can say without inventing numbers: both cars carry the same 65 L tank, the same 100 hp, and the same 1260 kg. Economy differences, if they exist in the real world, are not measured in this dataset and must not be treated as catalogue facts.
Dimensions, weight, clearance, tank
Kerb weight: 1260 kg on 2.0 AT, 1260 kg on 2.0 MT. Difference: 0 kg. Gross weight: not measured on 2.0 AT, not measured on 2.0 MT. Payload cannot be calculated. Ground clearance: 180 mm on both. Difference: 0 mm. Tank: 65 L on both. Difference: 0 L. Wheel sizes: not measured on either version.
Front suspension is Independent, spring on both. Rear suspension is not measured on either. Front brakes are Disc on both. Rear brakes are not measured on either.
There is no “heavier Automatic” in these numbers and no “taller” version. Ground clearance 180 mm is the same whether you pick 2.0 AT or 2.0 MT. If clearance, kerb weight, or tank size is your buying criterion, the two versions tie.
Weight per litre of tank: 1260 ÷ 65 ≈ 19.4 kg per litre of fuel capacity, same on both. That ratio is a catalogue identity, not a consumption claim.
Problems and reliability: what the numbers do and do not show
This dataset does not list failure rates, recall counts, or common faults. Reliability cannot be scored from these fields. What the fields do show is a simple, unchanged mechanical package for the whole 1981-01-01–1992-12-31 window:
- One Gasoline 1979 cm³ Inline 4, 2 valves per cylinder, Carburetor, Boost No
- One power figure: 100 hp / 74 kW at 5200 rpm
- One torque figure: 156 Nm at 3800 rpm
- One drive: RWD
- One body: Sedan
- One generation
A buyer looking for “the later, more reliable Royale” will not find a second generation or a restyle generation in this list. A buyer looking for “the diesel” or “the turbo” will not find those versions here. A buyer looking for AWD will not find it: both versions are RWD.
The Carburetor and fuel 92 apply to both 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT. Choosing Manual versus Automatic does not change the listed fuel system. Compression ratio 9 is the same. Bore × stroke 95 × 69.8 is the same.
Which version to choose
Choose 2.0 AT if you want the only Automatic in the range (3 gears) and the only measured top speed (170 km/h). You get the same 100 hp, 156 Nm, 1979 cm³, 1260 kg, 65 L tank, 180 mm clearance, and RWD as the Manual. You do not get a measured 0–100, a measured mpg figure, a measured gross weight, or measured wheel sizes.
Choose 2.0 MT if you want the only Manual in the range (5 gears) and two extra ratios for the same 100 hp and 156 Nm. You accept that top speed is not measured, and that 0–100, consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight, and wheels are not measured — the same gaps as on 2.0 AT, except for that missing 170 km/h figure.
Do not choose between them on power. 100 − 100 = 0 hp difference. Do not choose on torque. 156 − 156 = 0 Nm difference. Do not choose on weight. 1260 − 1260 = 0 kg difference. Do not choose on clearance or tank. 180 mm and 65 L on both. Do not choose on generation. There is one generation, one Sedan body, one production window.
What extra money can buy, using only these numbers: not more horsepower, not more displacement, not a different cylinder layout, not Boost, not a larger tank, not more ground clearance. It can only buy the Automatic 3-speed (2.0 AT) instead of the Manual 5-speed (2.0 MT), plus a published 170 km/h top speed that exists solely on 2.0 AT.
If you need a number that is missing — 0–100, mpg, CO2, eco class, gross weight, rear suspension, rear brakes, engine position, wheel size, or 2.0 MT top speed — it is not measured in this catalogue. Treat it as not measured, not as zero and not as “the same as the other version” except where the table actually prints the same figure.
Short buyer checklist
1. Body and years: Sedan, 1 generation, 1981-01-01 to 1992-12-31 — identical for 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT. 2. Engine: 1979 cm³ Gasoline Inline 4, 100 hp (74 kW) at 5200 rpm, 156 Nm at 3800 rpm, Carburetor, Boost No, fuel 92 — identical. 3. Specific output: 50.5 hp/L and 12.6 kg/hp — identical. 4. Drivetrain fork: Automatic 3 + RWD (2.0 AT) versus Manual 5 + RWD (2.0 MT). 5. Speed: 170 km/h measured on 2.0 AT only; not measured on 2.0 MT. 6. Economy and sprint: not measured on either. 7. Size-related: kerb 1260 kg, tank 65 L, clearance 180 mm; gross weight and wheels not measured.
That is the whole choice the data supports.