Daewoo Winstorm: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Daewoo Winstorm range offers three distinct engine choices within its only generation: the economical 2.0 Diesel, the less powerful 2.4 Gasoline engine, and the substantially quicker 3.2 Gasoline unit. All versions are SUV 5-doors models produced from July 2006 through December 2010, with a choice of FWD or AWD.
The Daewoo Winstorm range offers three distinct engine choices within its only generation: the economical 2.0 Diesel, the less powerful 2.4 Gasoline engine, and the substantially quicker 3.2 Gasoline unit. All versions are SUV 5-doors models produced from July 2006 through December 2010, with a choice of FWD or AWD. The 2.0 MT FWD has the lowest measured combined fuel consumption at 7.9 l/100 km among the manual versions, while the 2.0 AT FWD records the lowest figure in the entire measured range at 7.3 l/100 km. For maximum performance, the 3.2 AT AWD is the clear choice: it produces 227 hp, reaches 100 km/h in 8.8 seconds, and has a measured top speed of 204 km/h.
Generation and version choice
The Winstorm has one generation, listed as 1 generation. It was produced from July 2006 to December 2010 exclusively as an SUV 5-doors and includes 10 versions. Because there is no second generation in the supplied data, the buying decision is about engine, gearbox, and drive rather than choosing between generations.
The range comprises 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 MT, 2.4 AT, and 3.2 AT versions. Each name appears with different drive systems, so the drive type is essential when distinguishing them. The two 2.0 MT versions are FWD and AWD, as are the two 2.0 AT versions. The same applies to 2.4 MT, 2.4 AT, and 3.2 AT.
Engine and transmission specs
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT AWD | 150 hp | 320 Nm | 1,991 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5-speed | AWD |
| 2.0 MT FWD | 150 hp | 320 Nm | 1,991 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5-speed | FWD |
| 2.0 AT AWD | 150 hp | 320 Nm | 1,991 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | Automatic, 5-speed | AWD |
| 2.0 AT FWD | 150 hp | 320 Nm | 1,991 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | Automatic, 5-speed | FWD |
| 2.4 MT AWD | 138 hp | 220 Nm | 2,395 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5-speed | AWD |
| 2.4 MT FWD | 138 hp | 220 Nm | 2,395 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5-speed | FWD |
| 2.4 AT AWD | 138 hp | 220 Nm | 2,395 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | Automatic, 5-speed | AWD |
| 2.4 AT FWD | 138 hp | 220 Nm | 2,395 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | Automatic, 5-speed | FWD |
| 3.2 AT AWD | 227 hp | 297 Nm | 3,195 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | Automatic, 5-speed | AWD |
| 3.2 AT FWD | 227 hp | 297 Nm | 3,195 cc | Gasoline | 6, Inline | No | Automatic, 5-speed | FWD |
The turbocharged 2.0 Diesel produces approximately 75.3 hp per litre. The 2.4 Gasoline engine delivers about 57.6 hp per litre, while the 3.2 Gasoline engine produces approximately 71.0 hp per litre. Despite having the smallest displacement, the 2.0 makes 12 hp more than the 2.4 and supplies 100 Nm more torque. That makes the 2.0 the stronger numerical proposition when comparing these two engines directly.
The 3.2 adds 77 hp over the 2.0 and 89 hp over the 2.4. Its 297 Nm output is 77 Nm higher than the 2.4 figure but 23 Nm below the 2.0 Diesel’s 320 Nm.
Performance and fuel economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT AWD | 11.7 sec | 177 km/h | 9.0 l/100 km | 6.5 l/100 km | 8.1 l/100 km |
| 2.0 MT FWD | 10.9 sec | 180 km/h | 8.6 l/100 km | 7.6 l/100 km | 7.9 l/100 km |
| 2.0 AT AWD | 12.7 sec | 177 km/h | 9.0 l/100 km | 7.0 l/100 km | 7.8 l/100 km |
| 2.0 AT FWD | 11.7 sec | 181 km/h | 8.0 l/100 km | 6.0 l/100 km | 7.3 l/100 km |
| 2.4 MT AWD | 11.5 sec | 185 km/h | 12.0 l/100 km | 7.1 l/100 km | 8.8 l/100 km |
| 2.4 MT FWD | 11.5 sec | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.4 AT AWD | 13.5 sec | 183 km/h | 12.6 l/100 km | 7.3 l/100 km | 10.8 l/100 km |
| 2.4 AT FWD | 13.5 sec | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 3.2 AT AWD | 8.8 sec | 204 km/h | 16.4 l/100 km | 8.6 l/100 km | 12.0 l/100 km |
| 3.2 AT FWD | 8.8 sec | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
Among versions with complete consumption data, the 2.0 AT FWD uses 7.3 l/100 km combined. That is 0.5 l/100 km less than the 2.0 AT AWD, 1.5 l/100 km less than the 2.4 MT AWD, 3.5 l/100 km less than the 2.4 AT AWD, and 4.7 l/100 km less than the 3.2 AT AWD.
The 2.0 MT FWD is the quickest measured 2.0, reaching 100 km/h in 10.9 seconds. It is 0.8 seconds quicker than the 2.0 MT AWD and 2.0 AT FWD, and 1.8 seconds quicker than the 2.0 AT AWD. However, the 2.0 AT FWD combines the best measured economy with a top speed of 181 km/h, which is 1 km/h above the 2.0 MT FWD.
The 2.4 MT AWD reaches 100 km/h in 11.5 seconds, making it 2.0 seconds quicker than the 2.4 AT AWD. Its measured combined consumption is also 2.0 l/100 km lower. The automatic therefore carries a substantial numerical penalty in the AWD 2.4 comparison without adding power or torque.
The 3.2 AT AWD is 2.7 seconds quicker to 100 km/h than the 2.4 MT AWD and 4.7 seconds quicker than the 2.4 AT AWD. Its 204 km/h measured maximum is 19 km/h above the 2.4 MT AWD and 21 km/h above the 2.4 AT AWD. The trade-off is consumption: its combined figure is 3.2 l/100 km higher than the 2.4 MT AWD and 4.7 l/100 km higher than the 2.0 AT FWD.
Weight, clearance, tank, and wheel sizes
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Weight per hp | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT AWD | 1,745 kg | 2,320 kg | 11.6 kg/hp | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
| 2.0 MT FWD | 1,715 kg | 2,320 kg | 11.4 kg/hp | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
| 2.0 AT AWD | 1,760 kg | 2,320 kg | 11.7 kg/hp | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
| 2.0 AT FWD | 1,730 kg | 2,320 kg | 11.5 kg/hp | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
| 2.4 MT AWD | 1,690 kg | 2,320 kg | 12.2 kg/hp | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
| 2.4 MT FWD | not measured | not measured | not measured | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
| 2.4 AT AWD | 1,835 kg | 2,395 kg | 13.3 kg/hp | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
| 2.4 AT FWD | not measured | not measured | not measured | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
| 3.2 AT AWD | 1,810 kg | 2,440 kg | 8.0 kg/hp | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
| 3.2 AT FWD | not measured | not measured | not measured | 200 mm | 65 l | not measured |
Within like-for-like 2.0 gearbox comparisons, AWD adds 30 kg: the 2.0 MT AWD weighs 1,745 kg against 1,715 kg for the 2.0 MT FWD, while the 2.0 AT AWD weighs 1,760 kg against 1,730 kg for the 2.0 AT FWD. The 3.2 AT AWD has the strongest measured power-to-weight result at about 8.0 kg per horsepower. The 2.4 AT AWD has the weakest measured result at about 13.3 kg per horsepower.
Every version has 200 mm of ground clearance and a 65-litre tank. Wheel sizes are not measured for any version. Both suspensions are Independent, spring, while the front and rear brakes are Disc across the range.
Which Daewoo Winstorm version should you buy?
The 2.0 AT FWD is the best data-led choice for economy and automatic convenience. It records the lowest measured combined consumption, 7.3 l/100 km, while retaining 150 hp and 320 Nm. Compared with the 2.0 AT AWD, it is 30 kg lighter, accelerates to 100 km/h 1.0 second sooner, reaches a top speed 4 km/h higher, and consumes 0.5 l/100 km less combined.
Choose the 2.0 MT FWD if acceleration matters more than having an Automatic gearbox. Its 10.9-second time is the best among the four 2.0 versions, and its 1,715 kg kerb weight is also the lowest measured weight in that engine group. Its 7.9 l/100 km combined figure is 0.6 l/100 km above that of the 2.0 AT FWD.
The 2.0 MT AWD is the preferable AWD diesel when choosing between the two gearbox types primarily on performance. It reaches 100 km/h in 11.7 seconds, 1.0 second ahead of the 2.0 AT AWD. The automatic AWD version narrowly wins on combined consumption, using 7.8 rather than 8.1 l/100 km.
Among the measured 2.4 choices, the 2.4 MT AWD is more compelling than the 2.4 AT AWD. Both provide 138 hp and 220 Nm, but the manual is 145 kg lighter, reaches 100 km/h 2.0 seconds sooner, and consumes 2.0 l/100 km less combined. The 2.4 FWD versions have incomplete top-speed, consumption, and weight data, so those parameters cannot support a reliable comparison.
Buy the 3.2 AT AWD when outright performance is the priority. It has the highest power, the quickest acceleration, the highest measured top speed, and the best measured weight-per-horsepower ratio. Its cost is visible at the fuel pump rather than in supplied price data: the 12.0 l/100 km combined figure is the highest measured result in the range. Prices, reliability records, and problem data were not measured, so they cannot distinguish these versions here.