Daewoo Tosca

Tosca specs: four versions, one generation

There is no second generation to “step up” to. Every version in the catalogue sits in 1 generation (2006-01-01–2011-03-31), Sedan, FWD, Gasoline, 6 cylinders Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, 5 speeds, 95 fuel, 65 L tank, 150 mm ground clearance, independent spring suspension front and rear, ventilated disc front brakes, Disc rear brakes.

There is no second generation to “step up” to. Every version in the catalogue sits in 1 generation (2006-01-01–2011-03-31), Sedan, FWD, Gasoline, 6 cylinders Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, 5 speeds, 95 fuel, 65 L tank, 150 mm ground clearance, independent spring suspension front and rear, ventilated disc front brakes, Disc rear brakes.

What changes between versions is engine size, peak power timing, gearbox, mass, and the measured 0–100 / top-speed / consumption figures — not body, drive, or generation.

Which Tosca engine: 2.0 vs 2.5

2.0 MT and 2.0 AT share 1993 cm³, 142 hp / 105 kW, 187 Nm at 3800 rpm, compression 10.2, bore × stroke 75 × 75.2, multi-point injection. Specific output is 142 / 1.993 ≈ 71.2 hp per litre.

They do not share the same power rpm: 2.0 MT peaks at 6400 rpm; 2.0 AT at 5800 rpm. Same labelled horsepower, different engine speed at the peak.

2.5 AT and 2.5 MT share 2492 cm³, 152 hp, 240 Nm at 3800 rpm, bore × stroke 77 × 89.2. Specific output is 152 / 2.492 ≈ 61.0 hp per litre — about 10.2 hp/L lower than the 2.0s. The extra 499 cm³ buys +10 hp and +53 Nm, not a higher-revving engine: both 2.5s peak at 5800 rpm.

Do not treat the two 2.5s as identical on paper. 2.5 AT is listed at 111 kW, compression 9.8, kerb 1500 kg. 2.5 MT is listed at 112 kW, compression 10, kerb 1568 kg. Engine layout is Front, transverse on 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, and 2.5 AT; on 2.5 MT engine layout is not measured.

Tosca engine and gearbox table

CO2 and eco class: not measured on all four.

Tosca performance and mpg: what the extra 10 hp actually moves

0–100 km/h (s): 2.0 MT 9.9 · 2.5 AT 9.9 · 2.5 MT 10.4 · 2.0 AT 11.8.

The automatic 2.0 is 1.9 s slower than the manual 2.0. The automatic 2.5 matches the manual 2.0 to 100 km/h despite +40 kg kerb versus 2.0 AT/2.0 MT. The manual 2.5 is 0.5 s slower than the automatic 2.5 — and 108 kg heavier than 2.0 MT (1568 vs 1460).

Top speed (km/h): 2.5 AT 209 · 2.5 MT 209 · 2.0 MT 207 · 2.0 AT 199. The 2.5s add 2 km/h over 2.0 MT and 10 km/h over 2.0 AT.

kg per hp (kerb / hp): 2.5 AT 1500/152 ≈ 9.87 · 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT 1460/142 ≈ 10.28 · 2.5 MT 1568/152 ≈ 10.32. On mass-to-power, 2.5 AT is the densest; 2.5 MT is the least.

Fuel (L/100 km), city / highway / mixed:

• 2.0 MT: 11.4 / 6.3 / 8.2
• 2.5 MT: 11.9 / 6.8 / 9.5
• 2.0 AT: 12.4 / 6.8 / 8.9
• 2.5 AT: 13.8 / 6.6 / 9.3

2.0 MT is lowest on all three cycles. Mixed: 2.0 AT uses +0.7 vs 2.0 MT; 2.5 AT +1.1; 2.5 MT +1.3. City: 2.5 AT is the outlier at 13.8, +2.4 vs 2.0 MT. Highway: 2.5 AT (6.6) undercuts 2.0 AT and 2.5 MT (6.8) and sits 0.3 above 2.0 MT.

There are no prices in the data, so “what extra money buys” is only what extra displacement, mass, and gearbox buy in these numbers: +10 hp / +53 Nm from 2.0 to 2.5; Automatic vs Manual on the 2.0 costs 1.9 s to 100 and 8 km/h of top speed; Automatic vs Manual on the 2.5 gains 0.5 s to 100 at the same 209 km/h top speed, with mixed use 0.2 L/100 km lower than 2.5 MT (9.3 vs 9.5) but city use 1.9 L/100 km higher (13.8 vs 11.9).

Tosca dimensions, weight, tank, wheels

Ground clearance is 150 mm on every version. Tank is 65 L on every version.

2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, and 2.5 AT share 485 kg of payload. 2.5 MT is 68 kg heavier at kerb than 2.5 AT and only 33 kg heavier at gross, so payload drops to 450 kg (−35 kg). If you need the same payload as the 2.0s, 2.5 MT is the one that does not match.

Wheel sizes are measured only on 2.0 AT. On 2.0 MT, 2.5 AT, and 2.5 MT they are not measured.

Which Tosca version to choose

Choose 2.0 MT if the ranking that matters is economy and 0–100 together. It is the lightest (1460 kg), lowest mixed consumption (8.2), lowest city (11.4), lowest highway (6.3), joint-quickest 0–100 (9.9), and 207 km/h top speed — 2 km/h behind the 2.5s. Wheels: not measured.

Choose 2.5 AT if the ranking that matters is torque and mass-to-power without giving up the 9.9 s 0–100. You get 240 Nm (+53 vs either 2.0), 152 hp, the best kg/hp (≈ 9.87), 209 km/h, same 485 kg payload as the 2.0s, kerb only +40 kg vs 2.0 AT. Cost in the data is fuel: mixed 9.3 (+1.1 vs 2.0 MT), city 13.8 (worst of the four). Wheels: not measured.

Choose 2.0 AT only if Automatic on the 1993 cm³ engine is the requirement. Same 142 hp / 187 Nm / 1460 kg / 485 kg payload as 2.0 MT, and it is the only version with measured wheels (215/50 R17, 205/60 R16). It is also the slowest: 11.8 s to 100, 199 km/h, mixed 8.9. Versus 2.5 AT you give up 10 hp, 53 Nm, 10 km/h, and 1.9 s, while saving 0.4 L/100 km mixed and 1.4 L/100 km in the city.

Choose 2.5 MT if you want 152 hp / 240 Nm with Manual. It is not the quick 2.5: 10.4 s to 100 versus 9.9 for 2.5 AT, kerb 1568 kg (heaviest), mixed 9.5 (highest), payload 450 kg (lowest), engine layout not measured. Top speed still 209 km/h. Versus 2.0 MT you pay +108 kg, +1.3 L/100 km mixed, and +0.5 s to 100 for +10 hp and +53 Nm.

Do not choose by generation. 1 generation is the whole catalogue; nothing later restyles these four. Do not choose by body or drive: all are Sedan, FWD.

Short arithmetic recap: 2.0 MT wins consumption and ties 0–100; 2.5 AT wins torque, kg/hp, and ties 0–100; 2.0 AT is the measured-wheel automatic 2.0 and the slowest; 2.5 MT is the heavy manual 2.5 with the weakest payload.