Dodge Raider

Dodge Raider: which version to buy

The Dodge Raider was sold in one generation only (July 1986–June 1989) as an SUV 3-doors with three diesel AWD versions: 2.3 MT, 2.5 AT, and 2.5 MT. There is no later generation to “wait for,” no restyling listed in the data, and no petrol option in this catalogue set.

The Dodge Raider was sold in one generation only (July 1986–June 1989) as an SUV 3-doors with three diesel AWD versions: 2.3 MT, 2.5 AT, and 2.5 MT. There is no later generation to “wait for,” no restyling listed in the data, and no petrol option in this catalogue set. The buying choice is therefore a three-way split: the smaller turbo diesel with a 5-speed Manual, or the larger turbo diesel with either a 4-speed Automatic or a 5-speed Manual. Every figure below is from that set; where a number is missing, it is written as not measured.

Which generation actually exists

One generation is the whole catalogue. Years: 1986-07-01 to 1989-06-30. Body: SUV 3-doors. Versions in the generation: 3. Nothing in the data shows a facelift as a separate generation, so there is no “new body” or “updated chassis” to pay for by moving years inside the run. Ground clearance is 210 mm on all three versions. Front suspension is Independent, spring on all three. Front brakes are Disc on all three. Drive is AWD on all three. Fuel is Diesel on all three. Layout is Inline 4 with Turbo on all three. If you are choosing between generations, the arithmetic is zero: there is only this one.

That does not make the three versions the same car. The split is engine size and gearbox, not year or body.

Specs table: the three versions side by side

Power of 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT is listed at 4200 rpm; torque of those two at 2000 rpm. Power rpm and torque of 2.3 MT are not measured.

Engines: what the extra 176 cc buys

2.3 MT uses 2300 cc. 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT use 2476 cc. Difference: 176 cc, or about 7.7% more swept volume (176 ÷ 2300).

Power: 84 hp / 62 kW on 2.3 MT versus 103 hp / 76 kW on both 2.5 versions. Difference: +19 hp and +14 kW. Relative to the smaller engine that is +22.6% horsepower (19 ÷ 84) and +22.6% kilowatts (14 ÷ 62). The 2.5 pair therefore adds more power than it adds displacement: specific output is 84 ÷ 2.3 ≈ 36.5 hp per litre on 2.3 MT, and 103 ÷ 2.476 ≈ 41.6 hp per litre on 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT. The larger diesel is not only bigger; it is denser in output per litre by about 5.1 hp/L (41.6 − 36.5).

Torque is the other half of the diesel argument, and here the catalogue is uneven on purpose. 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT share 240 Nm at 2000 rpm. 2.3 MT torque is not measured. You cannot rank the 2.3 by newton-metres against the 2.5; you can only rank it by the 84 hp figure and the 2300 cc size. If low-rpm pull is why you want a turbo diesel, the measured 240 Nm belongs only to the two 2.5 versions.

All three are Turbo Diesel, Inline, 4 cylinders. There is no naturally aspirated row and no different cylinder count to trade. Boost type does not separate the versions. Fuel type does not separate them. The engine decision is 2300 cc / 84 hp versus 2476 cc / 103 hp / 240 Nm.

Gearbox: the only split inside the 2.5 pair

2.5 AT and 2.5 MT are identical in the engine columns: 103 hp, 76 kW, 240 Nm, 2476 cc, Diesel, 4, Inline, Turbo, AWD. The difference is the gearbox: Automatic with 4 gears versus Manual with 5 gears.

2.3 MT already uses Manual with 5 gears, so if you want a five-speed you can stay on the smaller engine or step to 2.5 MT. There is no Automatic on the 2.3 in this data. Automatic exists only as 2.5 AT.

That is the “extra” the Automatic actually buys in this catalogue: not more power (103 hp on both 2.5 versions), not more torque (240 Nm on both), not more clearance (210 mm on both), not a different drive (AWD on both). It buys a 4-speed Automatic instead of a 5-speed Manual, on the same 2476 cc turbo diesel.

Conversely, 2.5 MT versus 2.5 AT is the version to pick if you want the 103 hp / 240 Nm engine and the extra ratio of a 5-speed Manual. Versus 2.3 MT, 2.5 MT keeps the same gearbox type (Manual, 5) and adds the 19 hp / 176 cc / 240 Nm step.

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

0–100 is not measured on 2.3 MT, 2.5 AT, or 2.5 MT.

Top speed is not measured on 2.3 MT, 2.5 AT, or 2.5 MT.

City, highway, and combined fuel consumption are not measured on 2.3 MT, 2.5 AT, or 2.5 MT. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured.

You cannot choose a Raider version on acceleration, top speed, or mpg from this data. The 19 hp gap and the 240 Nm figure are the only performance-related numbers that exist. Weight is also not measured (see dimensions), so power-to-weight cannot be calculated for any version. Anyone ranking these three by “which is quicker” or “which sips less diesel” is inventing a ranking the catalogue does not support.

Dimensions, weight, tank, wheels

Kerb weight is not measured on 2.3 MT, 2.5 AT, or 2.5 MT.

Gross weight is not measured on 2.3 MT, 2.5 AT, or 2.5 MT.

Fuel tank is not measured on 2.3 MT, 2.5 AT, or 2.5 MT.

Wheel sizes are not measured on 2.3 MT, 2.5 AT, or 2.5 MT.

Ground clearance is 210 mm on all three. Rear suspension is not measured on all three. Rear brakes are not measured on all three. Front suspension Independent, spring and front brakes Disc are the same on all three.

There is no “lighter 2.3” or “heavier 2.5” in the numbers, and no tank-size reason to prefer one version for range. The only chassis figure that is measured and comparable is 210 mm of clearance, and it does not change with engine or gearbox. Body type does not change either: SUV 3-doors for the whole generation.

Which version to choose

Choose 2.3 MT if you want the smallest listed diesel and a 5-speed Manual, and you accept 84 hp / 62 kW with torque not measured. You give up 19 hp and 176 cc versus the 2.5 pair. You also give up the only Automatic in the range, because Automatic is not offered on the 2.3. You do not give up AWD, Turbo, Inline 4, 210 mm clearance, or the SUV 3-doors body — those are common.

Choose 2.5 MT if you want the strongest measured engine with a 5-speed Manual. Arithmetic versus 2.3 MT: +176 cc, +19 hp, +14 kW, specific output up from ~36.5 to ~41.6 hp/L, and 240 Nm at 2000 rpm instead of torque not measured. Gearbox type stays Manual, 5. Versus 2.5 AT: same 103 hp, same 240 Nm, same 2476 cc; you take 5 Manual gears instead of 4 Automatic gears. If the point of the larger diesel is control of ratios rather than two-pedal driving, 2.5 MT is the version that keeps both the 103 hp engine and the 5-speed.

Choose 2.5 AT if the 4-speed Automatic is the feature you are actually buying. Engine numbers match 2.5 MT exactly (103 hp at 4200 rpm, 240 Nm at 2000 rpm, 2476 cc, Diesel, Turbo, Inline 4, AWD). Versus 2.3 MT you still pick up the +19 hp / +176 cc / 240 Nm step, but you also leave the 5-speed Manual. There is no extra horsepower for choosing Automatic over Manual on the 2.5. The Automatic is not a higher-output tune; it is the same 103 hp diesel with 4 Automatic gears.

Do not choose by generation. There is one generation, 1986-07-01–1989-06-30, three versions, one body. Year inside that window is not a spec in the modification list that would change hp, Nm, or clearance.

Do not choose by mpg, 0–100, top speed, kerb weight, tank, or wheels. All of those are not measured on every version. A “more economical 2.3” or a “quicker 2.5” is not a statement this catalogue can support.

Do not split 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT by power. Both are 103 hp. Same name family, same output; distinguish them only by Automatic (4) versus Manual (5).

Short ranking by what the data actually measures:

1. Most measured engine output: 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT tied at 103 hp / 240 Nm. 2. Only Automatic: 2.5 AT. 3. 5-speed Manual with the 103 hp engine: 2.5 MT. 4. Smallest displacement and lowest listed power, 5-speed Manual: 2.3 MT at 84 hp / 2300 cc.

That is the whole buy decision for the Dodge Raider in this set: three diesel AWD SUV 3-doors from one generation, separated by 19 hp and 176 cc on the engine, and by Manual 5 versus Automatic 4 on the 2.5 pair.