FAW Vita: Which Version Should You Buy?
The FAW Vita was produced as a Sedan in one generation from March 2007 through December 2010. The catalogue contains three versions: two distinct entries named 1.3 MT, both with 92 hp, and a 1.5 MT with 102 hp. The main buying decision is between the lighter, earlier 1.3 MT, the later and heavier 1.3 MT, and the more powerful 1.5 MT.
The FAW Vita was produced as a Sedan in one generation from March 2007 through December 2010. The catalogue contains three versions: two distinct entries named 1.3 MT, both with 92 hp, and a 1.5 MT with 102 hp. The main buying decision is between the lighter, earlier 1.3 MT, the later and heavier 1.3 MT, and the more powerful 1.5 MT. All use Gasoline engines, a Manual gearbox, and FWD, so the meaningful differences are engine output, weight, performance, fuel-consumption figures, compression ratio, and front-brake specification.
FAW Vita generations and versions
The only FAW Vita generation ran from March 2007 to December 2010 as a Sedan and contains three catalogue entries. The 92 hp 1.3 MT with 68 kW was available from March 2007, while the 92 hp 1.3 MT with 71 kW and the 102 hp 1.5 MT were available from March 2008. All three remained listed through December 2010.
Because the two 1.3 MT entries share the same version name and horsepower rating, they are best distinguished by output in kW and kerb weight. The earlier 1.3 MT has 68 kW and a 965 kg kerb weight; the later 1.3 MT has 71 kW and a 1,020 kg kerb weight.
FAW Vita engine and specs comparison
| Version | Output | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 MT, 68 kW | 92 hp at 6,000 rpm | 114 Nm at 5,200 rpm | 1,342 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.3 MT, 71 kW | 92 hp at 6,000 rpm | 114 Nm at 5,200 rpm | 1,342 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.5 MT | 102 hp at 6,000 rpm | 130 Nm at 4,400 rpm | 1,498 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
Every engine is mounted Front, transverse, uses Distributed injection (multi-point), and has 4 valves per cylinder. The two 1.3 MT versions have the same 78.7 × 69 mm bore and stroke, but different compression ratios: 9 for the 68 kW version and 11 for the 71 kW version. The 1.5 MT has a 78.7 × 77 mm bore and stroke and a compression ratio of 9.5.
On calculated specific output, the 68 kW and 71 kW 1.3 MT entries are identical because both produce 92 hp from 1,342 cc: approximately 68.6 hp per litre. The 1.5 MT produces approximately 68.1 hp per litre from 1,498 cc. Its advantage therefore comes from greater displacement rather than a higher calculated output per litre.
The 1.5 MT provides 10 hp and 16 Nm more than either 1.3 MT. Its maximum torque also arrives at 4,400 rpm instead of 5,200 rpm. Those figures make it the strongest version in this catalogue, although all three retain the same 5-speed Manual gearbox and FWD layout.
FAW Vita performance and fuel economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 MT, 68 kW | 14.3 s | 172 km/h | 8.2 | 6.4 | 5.3 |
| 1.3 MT, 71 kW | 14.3 s | 172 km/h | 8.7 | 6.4 | 5.7 |
| 1.5 MT | 13.5 s | 178 km/h | 8.3 | 6.6 | 7.5 |
The consumption units are not specified in the supplied data, so the catalogue figures are reproduced without assigning a unit. Emissions are not measured for every version, and the environmental class is not measured for every version.
The 1.5 MT is the performance choice. It reaches 100 km/h 0.8 seconds sooner than either 1.3 MT and has a top speed 6 km/h higher. Against those gains, its listed combined consumption is 2.2 higher than the earlier 68 kW 1.3 MT and 1.8 higher than the later 71 kW 1.3 MT.
The earlier 68 kW 1.3 MT has the lowest listed city and combined figures: 8.2 and 5.3. Compared with the later 71 kW 1.3 MT, it uses 0.5 less in the city and 0.4 less on the combined figure, while their highway figure, acceleration time, top speed, horsepower, and torque are identical.
The 1.5 MT records 8.3 in the city, only 0.1 above the earlier 1.3 MT, but its highway figure rises by 0.2 and its combined figure by 2.2. Because the supplied city, highway, and combined values do not form an obvious progression, buyers should compare them as separate catalogue measurements rather than calculate one from another.
FAW Vita dimensions, weight, clearance, and tank size
External length, width, and height are not measured in the supplied data for all three versions. Wheel sizes are also not measured for every version.
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 MT, 68 kW | 965 kg | 1,340 kg | 155 mm | 45 litres | not measured |
| 1.3 MT, 71 kW | 1,020 kg | 1,340 kg | 155 mm | 45 litres | not measured |
| 1.5 MT | 1,020 kg | 1,395 kg | 155 mm | 45 litres | not measured |
The earlier 68 kW 1.3 MT is 55 kg lighter than both the later 71 kW 1.3 MT and the 1.5 MT. Its calculated weight-to-power ratio is approximately 10.5 kg per hp, compared with approximately 11.1 kg per hp for the later 1.3 MT and exactly 10 kg per hp for the 1.5 MT. This helps explain why the lighter early 1.3 MT matches the later 1.3 version’s recorded acceleration despite having a lower kW value in the catalogue.
All versions provide 155 mm of ground clearance and a 45-litre tank. They also share Independent, spring suspension at both ends and Drum rear brakes. The earlier 68 kW 1.3 MT has Ventilated disc front brakes, whereas the later 71 kW 1.3 MT and the 1.5 MT are listed with Disc front brakes.
Which FAW Vita version should you buy?
Choose the 1.5 MT if performance is the priority. Its 102 hp and 130 Nm exceed the figures of both 1.3 MT entries, while its 13.5-second acceleration time and 178 km/h top speed are the best recorded results. At the same 1,020 kg kerb weight as the later 1.3 MT, it supplies 10 additional horsepower and improves the calculated weight-to-power ratio from about 11.1 to exactly 10 kg per hp. No price data is supplied, so the extra purchase cost—and therefore whether the performance gain is good monetary value—cannot be measured.
Choose the 68 kW 1.3 MT if low weight and the lowest listed consumption matter most. It is the lightest at 965 kg, has the lowest combined figure at 5.3, and retains the same 14.3-second acceleration time and 172 km/h top speed as the later, 55 kg heavier 1.3 MT. It is also the only entry with Ventilated disc front brakes in the data.
The 71 kW 1.3 MT is harder to justify from the supplied numbers alone. It has the same 92 hp, 114 Nm, 14.3-second acceleration time, and 172 km/h top speed as the 68 kW version, yet it is 55 kg heavier and has higher listed city and combined consumption. Its distinguishing catalogue figures are 71 kW rather than 68 kW and a compression ratio of 11 rather than 9.
Overall, the 1.5 MT is the clearest choice for stronger acceleration and higher top speed, while the 68 kW 1.3 MT is the better numerical match for lower weight and lower listed consumption. Reliability, known problems, equipment, prices, and maintenance costs are not measured in the supplied data, so they cannot be used to rank these versions.