Foton Sauvana: which version to buy
The Foton Sauvana ran as 1 generation from 2014-11-01 to 2021-12-31. There is no second generation to “step up” to: every choice is among 6 versions of the same SUV 5-doors. The useful split is engine family first (2.0 turbo Gasoline, 2.4 naturally aspirated Gasoline, 2.8 turbo Diesel), then gearbox on the 2.0, then RWD versus AWD on the 2.4 and 2.8.
The Foton Sauvana ran as 1 generation from 2014-11-01 to 2021-12-31. There is no second generation to “step up” to: every choice is among 6 versions of the same SUV 5-doors. The useful split is engine family first (2.0 turbo Gasoline, 2.4 naturally aspirated Gasoline, 2.8 turbo Diesel), then gearbox on the 2.0, then RWD versus AWD on the 2.4 and 2.8.
Specs: how the six versions differ
| Version | Distinguisher | hp | Nm | cc | Fuel | Cylinders / layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 201 hp, AWD | 201 | 300 | 1981 | Gasoline | 4, Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5 | AWD |
| 2.0 AT | 217 hp, AWD | 217 | 320 | 1981 | Gasoline | 4, Inline | Turbo | Automatic, 6 | AWD |
| 2.4 MT | 160 hp, RWD | 160 | 213 | 2378 | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5 | RWD |
| 2.4 MT | 160 hp, AWD | 160 | 213 | 2378 | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5 | AWD |
| 2.8 MT | 177 hp, RWD | 177 | 360 | 2780 | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5 | RWD |
| 2.8 MT | 177 hp, AWD | 177 | 360 | 2780 | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5 | AWD |
All six share a Front, longitudinal engine, 4 valves per cylinder, a 75 L tank, 220 mm ground clearance, independent spring front / dependent spring rear suspension, and Disc brakes front and rear. Fuel for both 2.0 and both 2.4 versions is 95; both 2.8 versions use Diesel.
Engine: power per litre and what the extra displacement buys
2.0 MT (201 hp) and 2.0 AT (217 hp) are the densest engines in the catalogue: 101.5 hp/L and 109.5 hp/L from 1981 cc. 2.4 MT (160 hp) is 67.3 hp/L from 2378 cc. 2.8 MT (177 hp) is 63.7 hp/L from 2780 cc.
The 2.0 pair is the only turbo Gasoline, the only Direct injection (direct) layout, and the only versions with compression ratio 10. Peak power is at 5500 rpm; torque is a plateau 1750 – 4500 rpm (300 Nm on 2.0 MT, 320 Nm on 2.0 AT).
2.4 MT (both the RWD and the AWD) is the only naturally aspirated engine (Boost: No), the only Distributed injection (multi-point), and the only engine with a published bore × stroke: 87 × 100. Compression is 9.5. Peak power is later, at 5750 rpm; torque is a single point 213 Nm at 4000 rpm — 87 Nm less than 2.0 MT and 107 Nm less than 2.0 AT, despite 397 cc more displacement.
2.8 MT (RWD and AWD) is the only Diesel and the torque leader: 360 Nm. That is +60 Nm versus 2.0 MT, +40 Nm versus 2.0 AT, and +147 Nm versus either 2.4 MT. Power sits between the 2.4 and the 2.0: 177 hp is +17 hp versus 2.4 MT and −24 hp versus 2.0 MT (−40 hp versus 2.0 AT). Power rpm, torque rpm, injection system, and compression for the 2.8 are not measured.
If the buying question is “which engine works hardest per litre,” the answer is 2.0 AT then 2.0 MT. If the question is “which engine makes the most torque,” it is either 2.8 MT. If the question is “which Gasoline engine is simplest (no turbo, multi-point),” it is either 2.4 MT.
Transmission: 2.0 MT versus 2.0 AT — what the automatic actually adds
Only the 2.0 family offers a gearbox choice. 2.0 MT is Manual, 5 gears, 201 hp / 148 kW, 300 Nm, kerb 1940 kg. 2.0 AT is Automatic, 6 gears, 217 hp / 160 kW, 320 Nm, kerb 2035 kg.
Arithmetic on those figures:
- +16 hp and +12 kW on the AT (+8.0% power).
- +20 Nm (+6.7% torque), same 1750 – 4500 rpm window.
- +1 gear (6 versus 5).
- +95 kg kerb and +20 kg gross (2530 versus 2510).
- Power-to-weight still favours the AT: 9.38 kg/hp versus 9.65 kg/hp on the MT, because +16 hp more than offsets +95 kg.
- Payload (gross minus kerb) shrinks: 570 kg on 2.0 MT versus 495 kg on 2.0 AT — 75 kg less useful mass on the automatic.
Both 2.0 versions are AWD only; there is no RWD 2.0 to save weight. Both are Euro 5. Both list wheels 265/70 R16 and 265/65 R17. 0–100, top speed, city/highway/combined consumption, and CO2 are not measured on either 2.0, so the AT cannot be justified (or rejected) on acceleration or mpg from this dataset — only on power, torque, gears, and the 95 kg / 75 kg payload trade.
Drive: 2.4 MT RWD versus 2.4 MT AWD, and the same split on 2.8 MT
The 2.4 and 2.8 each exist twice under the same name. Distinguish them by drive, not by power: both 2.4 MT are 160 hp / 118 kW; both 2.8 MT are 177 hp / 130 kW.
2.4 MT RWD versus 2.4 MT AWD: same 2378 cc, 213 Nm, Manual 5, kerb 1940 kg, tank 75 L, clearance 220 mm. The only measured difference in the data is drive, plus top speed 150 km/h on the RWD and not measured on the AWD. Gross weight, eco class, wheels, 0–100, and consumption are not measured on both. There is no kerb penalty listed for AWD on this engine — 1940 kg either way — so AWD here is not “heavier on paper”; it is the same mass with a different driveline label.
2.8 MT RWD versus 2.8 MT AWD: same 2780 cc, 177 hp, 360 Nm, Manual 5, kerb 1940 kg. The RWD is the only version in the whole model with a measured 0–100: 13.9 s, and it shares the 150 km/h top speed with 2.4 MT RWD. The AWD 2.8 has 0–100 not measured and top speed not measured. Again, kerb is identical at 1940 kg, so the data do not show an AWD weight tax.
Choosing AWD on 2.4 or 2.8 is therefore a driveline choice, not a power or mass choice in this table. Choosing RWD is the only way to get a published top speed (150 km/h) on those two engines, and the only way to get a published 0–100 (13.9 s) on the Diesel.
Performance and mpg: what is measured and what is not
0–100 km/h: 13.9 s on 2.8 MT (177 hp, RWD). Not measured on 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, both 2.4 MT, and 2.8 MT AWD.
Top speed: 150 km/h on 2.4 MT (160 hp, RWD) and 2.8 MT (177 hp, RWD). Not measured on 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 MT AWD, and 2.8 MT AWD. The two RWD versions share the same 150 km/h cap despite 17 hp and 147 Nm more on the Diesel.
City, highway, and combined consumption: not measured on all six. CO2: not measured on all six. There is no mpg ranking possible from the data; any “which uses less fuel” claim would be invention.
Weight per horsepower (kerb / hp), which is computable:
- 2.0 AT: 2035 / 217 = 9.38 kg/hp (lightest per hp).
- 2.0 MT: 1940 / 201 = 9.65 kg/hp.
- 2.8 MT (both): 1940 / 177 = 10.96 kg/hp.
- 2.4 MT (both): 1940 / 160 = 12.13 kg/hp (heaviest per hp).
The 2.4 is 397 cc larger than the 2.0 but 41 hp down versus 2.0 MT and 57 hp down versus 2.0 AT. At the same 1940 kg as 2.0 MT / 2.8 MT / both 2.4 / AWD 2.8, it carries the worst kg/hp in the lineup.
Dimensions, weight, and wheels
Ground clearance is 220 mm on every version. Tank is 75 L on every version. Kerb is 1940 kg on five of six versions; only 2.0 AT is heavier at 2035 kg.
Gross weight is measured only on the 2.0 pair: 2510 kg (2.0 MT) and 2530 kg (2.0 AT). Gross is not measured on both 2.4 MT and both 2.8 MT, so payload can be calculated only for the 2.0s (570 kg MT, 495 kg AT).
Wheels are listed only on the 2.0 pair: 265/70 R16 and 265/65 R17. Wheel sizes for both 2.4 MT and both 2.8 MT are not measured.
Eco class Euro 5 is listed only on 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT. Eco class is not measured on the 2.4 and 2.8 versions.
Generations: what changed (and what did not)
There is 1 generation (2014-11-01–2021-12-31), SUV 5-doors, 6 versions. No restyling generation exists in the data, so there is no “later body with the same engines” to prefer. Year-to-year change inside the generation is not measured. The comparison is only across the six concurrent versions.
Which version to choose
Buy 2.0 AT (217 hp, AWD) if the priority is peak Gasoline output and the best kg/hp (9.38). It is the only Automatic and the only 6-speed. Cost of that choice in the numbers: +95 kg kerb versus every other version and −75 kg payload versus 2.0 MT. 0–100, top speed, and mpg remain not measured.
Buy 2.0 MT (201 hp, AWD) if you want the same turbo 1981 cc Direct injection (direct) family, Euro 5, and the listed wheel sizes, but keep 1940 kg and 570 kg payload. You give up 16 hp, 20 Nm, and one gear versus the AT. Still AWD only.
Buy 2.4 MT (160 hp, RWD) if you want the simplest Gasoline: Boost: No, Distributed injection (multi-point), 87 × 100, Manual 5, and a published top speed (150 km/h). You accept the weakest torque (213 Nm) and the worst kg/hp (12.13). Eco class, wheels, gross, 0–100, and mpg are not measured.
Buy 2.4 MT (160 hp, AWD) for the same engine with AWD. Kerb stays 1940 kg. Top speed becomes not measured. There is no power or mass difference versus the RWD 2.4 in this dataset.
Buy 2.8 MT (177 hp, RWD) if torque and the only timed sprint matter: 360 Nm and 13.9 s to 100, top speed 150 km/h, Diesel, Turbo, Manual 5, RWD, kerb 1940 kg. Versus 2.0 MT you trade −24 hp for +60 Nm; versus 2.4 MT you gain +17 hp and +147 Nm. Injection, compression, power rpm, torque rpm, eco class, wheels, gross, and mpg are not measured.
Buy 2.8 MT (177 hp, AWD) for the same Diesel with AWD. Same 177 hp, 360 Nm, 1940 kg. 0–100 and top speed are not measured on this one, so you cannot use the 13.9 s / 150 km/h figures as if they applied to the AWD.
Short ranking by the numbers that exist: strongest Gasoline and best kg/hp — 2.0 AT; most payload among measured gross weights — 2.0 MT; most torque and the only 0–100 — 2.8 MT RWD; least complex Gasoline — 2.4 MT (RWD if you need the 150 km/h figure, AWD if you need that drive type). No version can be ranked on mpg, because consumption is not measured on all six.