Fiat Freemont

Fiat Freemont: which version to buy and why

There is only 1 generation of the Fiat Freemont (June 2013–December 2015), a SUV 5-doors with 5 factory versions. The choice is not “which generation,” because the catalogue lists one production window.

There is only 1 generation of the Fiat Freemont (June 2013–December 2015), a SUV 5-doors with 5 factory versions. The choice is not “which generation,” because the catalogue lists one production window. It is which of five powertrains to take: 2.4 AT (170 hp, Gasoline, FWD), 3.6 AT (283 hp, Gasoline, AWD), 2.0 MT (140 hp, Diesel, FWD), 2.0 MT (170 hp, Diesel, FWD), or 2.0 AT (170 hp, Diesel, AWD). Below, every comparison uses those names and the numbers in the data; missing figures are written as not measured.

Specs snapshot: five versions, one generation

Two rows share the name 2.0 MT. They are not the same car: one is 140 hp / 103 kW, the other 170 hp / 125 kW. Both use 1956 cc, Diesel, Turbo, Manual with 6 gears, and FWD. Treat them as two modifications, not one.

Engine: what each litre actually delivers

Power per litre (hp ÷ displacement in litres):

• 2.0 MT (170 hp) and 2.0 AT: 170 ÷ 1.956 ≈ 86.9 hp/L — densest engines in the line.
• 3.6 AT: 283 ÷ 3.600 ≈ 78.6 hp/L.
• 2.4 AT: 170 ÷ 2.360 ≈ 72.0 hp/L.
• 2.0 MT (140 hp): 140 ÷ 1.956 ≈ 71.6 hp/L — least power per litre.

The 3.6 AT is not the most “efficient” engine on paper; it is the largest. Its 283 hp and 352 Nm come from 3600 cc and 6 cylinders in a V-shaped layout, with boost No. Peak torque sits at 4400 rpm, close to the 2.4 AT’s 4500 rpm for 220 Nm. The diesels put 350 Nm at 1750 rpm (2.0 MT 140 hp) or 1750–2500 rpm (both 170 hp diesels). That is 130 Nm more than the 2.4 AT at much lower rpm, which is the real argument for Diesel if the question is pulling, not peak horsepower.

Compression ratio is 10.5 on 2.4 AT, 16.5 on all three 1956 cc diesels, and not measured on 3.6 AT. Bore × stroke is 88 × 97 on 2.4 AT, 83 × 90.4 on the diesels, not measured on 3.6 AT. Fuel: 95 on 2.4 AT, Diesel on the three 2.0 versions, not measured on 3.6 AT. Injection is Distributed injection (multi-point) on 2.4 AT and 3.6 AT, Direct injection (direct) on 2.0 MT (140 hp), and not measured on both 170 hp diesels. Engine placement is Front, transverse on 2.4 AT, 2.0 MT (170 hp), and 2.0 AT; not measured on 3.6 AT and 2.0 MT (140 hp).

Weight per horsepower: which version is the lightest to drive

Kerb weight ÷ hp:

• 3.6 AT: 1910 ÷ 283 ≈ 6.75 kg/hp — lightest per horsepower by a wide margin.
• 2.4 AT: 1778 ÷ 170 ≈ 10.46 kg/hp — lightest kerb weight in the range (1778 kg), but only 170 hp.
• 2.0 MT (170 hp): 1949 ÷ 170 ≈ 11.46 kg/hp.
• 2.0 AT: 2079 ÷ 170 ≈ 12.23 kg/hp — heaviest kerb (2079 kg) for the same 170 hp as the 170 hp manuals and the 2.4 AT.
• 2.0 MT (140 hp): 1949 ÷ 140 ≈ 13.92 kg/hp — most mass per horsepower.

Gross weight: 2400 kg (2.4 AT), 2500 kg (both 2.0 MT), 2600 kg (2.0 AT), not measured (3.6 AT). Payload from the measured pairs: 2.4 AT 2400 − 1778 = 622 kg; 2.0 MT (either) 2500 − 1949 = 551 kg; 2.0 AT 2600 − 2079 = 521 kg. The Gasoline FWD automatic carries the largest measured payload; the Diesel AWD automatic carries the smallest.

Performance: 0–100 and top speed, version by version

3.6 AT is 4.9 s quicker to 100 than 2.4 AT (13.3 − 8.4) and 16 km/h faster at the top (206 − 190). Against the next-quickest Diesel, 2.0 MT (170 hp), the 3.6 AT is still 2.6 s quicker (11.0 − 8.4) and 11 km/h faster (206 − 195).

The two 2.0 MT rows: stepping from 140 hp to 170 hp cuts 1.3 s (12.3 − 11.0) and adds 15 km/h (195 − 180) with the same 350 Nm, the same 6.4 L/100 km mixed, the same 1949 kg, and the same FWD Manual. That is the cleanest “what extra output buys” pair in the catalogue: 30 hp and a broader torque plateau (1750–2500 vs a single 1750 point), no extra mixed consumption in the data.

2.0 AT vs 2.0 MT (170 hp): same 170 hp and 350 Nm, but Automatic + AWD instead of Manual + FWD. 0–100 is 0.1 s slower (11.1 vs 11.0). Top speed drops 11 km/h (184 vs 195). You are not buying acceleration; you are buying AWD and Automatic, and you pay in mass (+130 kg: 2079 − 1949) and in fuel (next section).

2.4 AT is the slowest 0–100 (13.3 s) despite matching the 170 hp diesels on peak hp. Torque explains it: 220 Nm vs 350 Nm, and 1778 kg is not light enough to offset that gap. Its top speed (190) still beats 2.0 MT (140 hp) by 10 km/h and 2.0 AT by 6 km/h.

mpg / fuel consumption and CO2

Tank is 77 L on every version — no difference to shop for.

Mixed / city / highway (L/100 km):

• 2.0 MT (140 hp): 6.4 / 8.3 / 5.3
• 2.0 MT (170 hp): 6.4 / 8.3 / 5.3 — identical to the 140 hp Diesel
• 2.0 AT: 7.3 / 9.6 / 6.0
• 2.4 AT: 9.9 / 14.2 / 7.4
• 3.6 AT: 13.2 / 15.7 / 10.7

Mixed gap 2.0 MT (either) vs 2.0 AT: 0.9 L/100 km (7.3 − 6.4). Vs 2.4 AT: 3.5 L/100 km. Vs 3.6 AT: 6.8 L/100 km. City: Diesel manuals 8.3 vs 2.0 AT 9.6 (+1.3), vs 2.4 AT 14.2 (+5.9), vs 3.6 AT 15.7 (+7.4). Highway: 5.3 vs 6.0 vs 7.4 vs 10.7.

Range from mixed figure × 77 L (arithmetic only): 2.0 MT ≈ 1203 km; 2.0 AT ≈ 1055 km; 2.4 AT ≈ 778 km; 3.6 AT ≈ 583 km.

CO2: 2.0 MT (170 hp) 169, 2.0 AT 194 (+25), 2.4 AT 230. 3.6 AT and 2.0 MT (140 hp): not measured. Eco class: Euro 5 on 2.4 AT, 3.6 AT, 2.0 MT (170 hp), 2.0 AT; not measured on 2.0 MT (140 hp).

Dimensions, ground clearance, chassis

Wheel sizes: not measured on all five versions.

Ground clearance: 2.4 AT 197 mm; 3.6 AT and 2.0 MT (140 hp) 182 mm (15 mm lower than 2.4 AT); 2.0 MT (170 hp) and 2.0 AT: not measured. If ride height is the buying criterion, the only version with a measured 197 mm is 2.4 AT.

Suspension is the same label on every version: front Independent, spring, rear Independent, spring. Brakes: front Ventilated disc, rear Disc, all five.

Which version to choose

Choose 3.6 AT if the job is speed and AWD in one Gasoline automatic. It is the only 283 hp / 352 Nm / 8.4 s / 206 km/h row. Weight per hp (6.75) is in a different class from the rest. Cost of that: mixed 13.2 L/100 km, city 15.7, highway 10.7, kerb 1910 kg, clearance 182 mm, CO2 not measured, gross weight not measured, fuel grade not measured. Versus 2.4 AT you gain 113 hp, 132 Nm, 4.9 s, 16 km/h, and AWD instead of FWD; you add 132 kg and 3.3 L/100 km mixed, and you lose 15 mm of measured clearance.

Choose 2.4 AT if you want the lightest Freemont, the highest measured clearance, and a Gasoline Automatic without AWD. 1778 kg kerb, 197 mm, 170 hp, 220 Nm, 6-speed Automatic, FWD, Euro 5, CO2 230. It is the slowest 0–100 (13.3 s). Versus any 170 hp Diesel it has 130 Nm less torque and 3.5 L/100 km more mixed than the 2.0 MT pair. It is the payload leader among measured pairs (622 kg).

Choose 2.0 MT (170 hp) if you want Diesel economy with the stronger four-cylinder and you will shift yourself. Same 6.4 / 8.3 / 5.3 as the 140 hp twin, but 170 hp, 11.0 s, 195 km/h, CO2 169, Euro 5, Front, transverse. Versus 2.0 MT (140 hp) you do not pay mixed fuel in this dataset. Clearance is not measured (the 140 hp Diesel is 182 mm). Injection system not measured.

Choose 2.0 MT (140 hp) only if you specifically want the lower peak output. You get 350 Nm at 1750 rpm, Direct injection (direct), 12.3 s, 180 km/h, 182 mm, 1949 / 2500 kg. You lose 30 hp, 1.3 s, 15 km/h, and you have CO2 not measured and eco class not measured. Mixed consumption does not improve versus the 170 hp 2.0 MT.

Choose 2.0 AT if you want Diesel torque, Automatic, and AWD together. 170 hp, 350 Nm, 11.1 s, 184 km/h, mixed 7.3, CO2 194, Euro 5, heaviest kerb 2079 kg, highest measured gross 2600 kg. Versus 2.0 MT (170 hp): +0.1 s, −11 km/h, +0.9 mixed, +25 CO2, +130 kg. Versus 3.6 AT: 113 hp and 2 Nm less, 2.7 s slower, 22 km/h slower, but 5.9 L/100 km less mixed (13.2 − 7.3). Clearance not measured.

There is no second generation to “wait for”: production in the data is one block, June 2013–December 2015, five versions, one SUV 5-doors body. The buying split is Gasoline FWD automatic (2.4 AT), Gasoline AWD automatic (3.6 AT), Diesel FWD manuals (2.0 MT 140 hp and 2.0 MT 170 hp), and Diesel AWD automatic (2.0 AT).