DongFeng AX7: Which Version Should You Buy?
The DongFeng AX7 choice comes down to two first-generation versions: 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT. Both are front-wheel-drive SUV 5-doors models produced from 2015 to 2021, and both use the same 1,997 cc Gasoline engine with 140 hp and 200 Nm. The decisive differences are the gearbox, kerb weight, measured acceleration, and top speed.
The DongFeng AX7 choice comes down to two first-generation versions: 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT. Both are front-wheel-drive SUV 5-doors models produced from 2015 to 2021, and both use the same 1,997 cc Gasoline engine with 140 hp and 200 Nm. The decisive differences are the gearbox, kerb weight, measured acceleration, and top speed. Choose 2.0 AT for its 6-speed Automatic transmission and measured 0–100 km/h time of 12.6 seconds. Choose 2.0 MT for its 5-speed Manual transmission, 30 kg lower kerb weight, and 185 km/h top speed—5 km/h above the Automatic version.
DongFeng AX7 generations and versions
The AX7 catalogue data covers one generation, so there is no cross-generation mechanical or dimensional change to compare. The 1 generation ran from 2015 to 2021 as an SUV 5-doors and included two versions: 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT. Both versions share the same engine output, FWD layout, 190 mm ground clearance, 61-litre fuel tank, independent spring suspension at both ends, Ventilated disc front brakes, and Disc rear brakes. No restyling is listed in the supplied data.
DongFeng AX7 engine and specs comparison
The two versions have identical engine specifications. Each uses a front, transverse 1,997 cc Gasoline engine with four Inline cylinders, four valves per cylinder, Distributed injection (multi-point), and no boost. Output is 140 hp at 6,000 rpm, equivalent to 103 kW, while peak torque is 200 Nm at 4,000 rpm. Both require 95 fuel and meet Euro 5.
Each engine produces approximately 70.1 hp per litre and 100.2 Nm per litre. Because the engine figures are equal, neither version offers a power or torque advantage; the purchasing decision rests primarily on transmission preference and vehicle weight.
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 AT | 140 hp / 103 kW at 6,000 rpm | 200 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,997 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4 | Inline; front, transverse | No | 6-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.0 MT | 140 hp / 103 kW at 6,000 rpm | 200 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,997 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4 | Inline; front, transverse | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
Performance and economy: 2.0 AT vs 2.0 MT
The 2.0 AT has a measured 0–100 km/h time of 12.6 seconds and a top speed of 180 km/h. The 2.0 MT reaches a top speed of 185 km/h, but its 0–100 km/h time is not measured. Therefore, the data supports a 5 km/h top-speed advantage for 2.0 MT, but it does not support an acceleration comparison between the versions.
Fuel consumption in city, highway, and combined driving is not measured for either version. CO₂ emissions are also not measured. Without those figures, neither 2.0 AT nor 2.0 MT can be identified as the more economical option from the supplied data.
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption | CO₂ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 AT | 12.6 seconds | 180 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 MT | not measured | 185 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
Dimensions, weight, ground clearance and tank size
The 2.0 AT has a kerb weight of 1,625 kg, while the 2.0 MT weighs 1,595 kg. The Manual version is therefore 30 kg lighter. With both engines producing 140 hp, the 2.0 AT carries approximately 11.61 kg per horsepower, compared with approximately 11.39 kg per horsepower for the 2.0 MT. The Manual consequently has a small weight-to-power advantage of about 0.21 kg per horsepower.
Both versions provide 190 mm of ground clearance and a 61-litre fuel tank. Gross weight is not measured for either version, and wheel sizes are not measured. Other exterior dimensions are not measured in the supplied data.
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 AT | 1,625 kg | not measured | 190 mm | 61 litres | not measured |
| 2.0 MT | 1,595 kg | not measured | 190 mm | 61 litres | not measured |
Suspension, brakes, reliability and problems
There is no hardware difference in the listed chassis specifications. Both 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT have Independent, spring front suspension and Independent, spring rear suspension. Each uses Ventilated disc front brakes and Disc rear brakes.
Reliability results and known problems are not measured in the supplied data. Service intervals, repair frequency, component life, and fault records are also not measured, so they cannot be used to favour either transmission. The specifications only establish that one version has a 6-speed Automatic gearbox and the other has a 5-speed Manual gearbox; they do not establish which is more reliable.
Which DongFeng AX7 version should you choose?
Choose 2.0 AT if the 6-speed Automatic gearbox is your priority. It is the only version with a measured acceleration result: 0–100 km/h in 12.6 seconds. Its engine output, torque, drive type, ground clearance, tank capacity, suspension, and brakes match those of 2.0 MT, although it weighs 30 kg more and has a 5 km/h lower top speed.
Choose 2.0 MT if you prefer a 5-speed Manual and want the lighter specification. At 1,595 kg, it carries approximately 11.39 kg per horsepower and reaches 185 km/h. That compares with 1,625 kg, approximately 11.61 kg per horsepower, and 180 km/h for 2.0 AT. Its acceleration, however, is not measured, so the lower weight cannot be presented as proof that it accelerates faster.
On the available numbers, 2.0 MT is the stronger specification-led choice because it is 30 kg lighter and has a 5 km/h higher top speed without surrendering any power or torque. 2.0 AT is the clear alternative for buyers whose main requirement is an Automatic gearbox. What any extra purchase cost buys cannot be calculated because prices are not measured in the data.