The article is a version-to-version buyer comparison using only the supplied numbers. One generation, three named trims: 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, 2.4 AT.
For a used Geely Emgrand EC8 there is only one generation (2012–2015), one body (Sedan), and three versions: 2.0 MT if you want the lightest car (1520 kg) and the highest listed top speed (190 km/h); 2.0 AT if you want the same 136 hp / 180 Nm 1997 cm³ Gasoline engine with a 6-speed Automatic; 2.4 AT if you want 20 hp and 33 Nm more (156 hp / 213 Nm from 2378 cm³) at 1545 kg kerb weight and 180 km…
The article is a version-to-version buyer comparison using only the supplied numbers. One generation, three named trims: 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, 2.4 AT.
# Geely Emgrand EC8: which version to buy (2012–2015)
For a used Geely Emgrand EC8 there is only one generation (2012–2015), one body (Sedan), and three versions: 2.0 MT if you want the lightest car (1520 kg) and the highest listed top speed (190 km/h); 2.0 AT if you want the same 136 hp / 180 Nm 1997 cm³ Gasoline engine with a 6-speed Automatic; 2.4 AT if you want 20 hp and 33 Nm more (156 hp / 213 Nm from 2378 cm³) at 1545 kg kerb weight and 180 km/h top speed. Fuel consumption, 0–100 km/h, CO₂, gross weight and wheel sizes are not measured on any version.
Specs that actually separate the three versions
All three cars share FWD, independent spring suspension front and rear, disc brakes at both ends, a 63-litre tank and 115 mm ground clearance. Boost is No on every engine. Cylinders are 4, layout Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, multi-point distributed injection, compression ratio 10. Those fields do not help you choose. These do:
| Version | hp | Nm | cm³ | Fuel | Gearbox | Top speed | Kerb weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 AT | 136 | 180 | 1997 | Gasoline (grade not measured) | Automatic 6 | 174 km/h | 1540 kg |
| 2.0 MT | 136 | 180 | 1997 | Gasoline (grade not measured) | Manual 5 | 190 km/h | 1520 kg |
| 2.4 AT | 156 | 213 | 2378 | Gasoline 95 | Automatic 6 | 180 km/h | 1545 kg |
Euro 4 is listed for 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT. Eco class for 2.4 AT is not measured. Engine position is Front, transverse only on 2.4 AT; it is not measured on the 2.0 pair.
Engine: 2.0 vs 2.4 — what the extra displacement buys
2.0 AT and 2.0 MT use the same 1997 cm³ Gasoline four: 136 hp (100 kW) at 6000 rpm and 180 Nm at 4000 rpm. 2.4 AT is 2378 cm³, 156 hp (115 kW) at 6000 rpm and 213 Nm at 4000 rpm.
Arithmetic on those figures:
- Displacement: 2.4 AT is 381 cm³ larger than the 2.0 versions (+19.1%).
- Power: +20 hp / +15 kW versus either 2.0 (+14.7% hp).
- Torque: +33 Nm versus either 2.0 (+18.3%).
- Specific output: 136 / 1.997 ≈ 68.1 hp per litre on 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT; 156 / 2.378 ≈ 65.6 hp per litre on 2.4 AT. The smaller engine is denser on paper; the larger one still delivers more absolute power and torque.
- Torque per litre: 180 / 1.997 ≈ 90.1 Nm/L (2.0); 213 / 2.378 ≈ 89.6 Nm/L (2.4). Nearly the same density; the 2.4 simply has more metal.
Peak rpm for power and torque is the same 6000 / 4000 on all three, so the 2.4 is not a higher-revving unit in the data — it is a larger, similarly tuned Inline 4.
Fuel grade is named only on 2.4 AT (95). For 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT fuel grade is not measured. If pump octane is a constraint, the data only pin 95 to the 2.4.
Gearbox: 5-speed Manual vs 6-speed Automatic
2.0 MT is the only Manual: 5 speeds. 2.0 AT and 2.4 AT are Automatic with 6 speeds.
You cannot read shift speed or fuel use from the data (consumption is not measured). You can read mass and top speed:
- 2.0 MT kerb 1520 kg versus 2.0 AT 1540 kg: the Automatic 2.0 is 20 kg heavier with the same engine.
- Top speed: 2.0 MT 190 km/h, 2.0 AT 174 km/h — 16 km/h in favour of the Manual on the same 136 hp.
- 2.4 AT sits in the middle on speed: 180 km/h — 6 km/h above 2.0 AT, 10 km/h below 2.0 MT, despite 20 extra horsepower.
So the Automatic does not “buy” a higher listed top speed on this model. On the 2.0 it costs 20 kg and 16 km/h of the brochure maximum. The 2.4 Automatic recovers 6 of those 16 km/h versus 2.0 AT and still trails 2.0 MT by 10 km/h.
Weight per horsepower (the only load figure we have)
Gross weight is not measured. Kerb weight is:
- 2.0 MT: 1520 / 136 ≈ 11.18 kg per hp
- 2.0 AT: 1540 / 136 ≈ 11.32 kg per hp
- 2.4 AT: 1545 / 156 ≈ 9.90 kg per hp
2.4 AT is only 5 kg heavier than 2.0 AT and 25 kg heavier than 2.0 MT, while carrying 20 more horsepower. That is the clearest “what extra displacement buys” number in the set: almost the same kerb mass, about 1.3–1.4 kg less car per horsepower.
Power-to-weight the other way:
- 2.0 MT: 136 / 1520 ≈ 89.5 hp per tonne
- 2.0 AT: 136 / 1540 ≈ 88.3 hp per tonne
- 2.4 AT: 156 / 1545 ≈ 101.0 hp per tonne
2.4 AT is about 14% more hp per tonne than 2.0 AT (101.0 vs 88.3). 2.0 MT beats 2.0 AT by only about 1.3% on that ratio — the Manual’s advantage is mass and top speed, not a different engine.
Torque-to-weight:
- 2.0 MT: 180 / 1520 ≈ 118.4 Nm per tonne
- 2.0 AT: 180 / 1540 ≈ 116.9 Nm per tonne
- 2.4 AT: 213 / 1545 ≈ 137.9 Nm per tonne
2.4 AT has roughly 18% more Nm per tonne than 2.0 AT. That is a larger relative gain than the 14.7% horsepower bump, because torque rose more than power (+18.3% vs +14.7%) while mass barely moved.
Performance and economy: what is measured, what is not
0–100 km/h: not measured on 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, or 2.4 AT. Do not infer a sprint time from hp or kg.
Top speed (the only performance number present):
- 2.0 MT: 190 km/h
- 2.4 AT: 180 km/h
- 2.0 AT: 174 km/h
City / highway / combined consumption: not measured on any version. MPG searches will not be answered by this catalogue. CO₂: not measured.
If “economy” is the buying criterion, the data do not rank the three cars. The 2.0 is 381 cm³ smaller; that is a size difference, not a measured fuel figure.
Dimensions and weight: they barely move
Ground clearance is 115 mm on all three. Tank is 63 litres on all three. Wheel sizes are not measured on any version. Gross weight is not measured.
Kerb spread across the whole model is 25 kg (1520–1545). That is not a packaging change between generations — there is only one generation — it is gearbox plus the 2.4 engine. Ride height and tank do not change with version, so they are not a reason to pick one over another.
Generations: there is nothing to “step up” to
The Emgrand EC8 has 1 generation, keys as 1 generation, Sedan, 3 versions, production 2012-01-01 to 2015-12-31. Every modification uses the same start and stop dates. There is no later generation in this dataset, no restyling split, and no year-to-year spec change inside a named version.
Buying advice that depends on “newer generation chassis / more power later” has no support here. Choice is only among 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT and 2.4 AT inside those years.
Which version to choose
Choose 2.0 MT when the numbers you care about are mass and listed top speed. It is the lightest Emgrand EC8 (1520 kg), the only Manual (5 speeds), and the fastest on paper (190 km/h). Engine output matches 2.0 AT exactly (136 hp, 180 Nm, 1997 cm³, Gasoline, 4 Inline, boost No). You give up the 6-speed Automatic. Euro 4 is listed.
Choose 2.0 AT when you want that same 136 hp 2.0 with Automatic 6 and FWD, and you accept 20 kg extra kerb (1540 kg) and the lowest top speed in the table (174 km/h). Specific output matches 2.0 MT (≈68.1 hp/L). Euro 4 is listed. Fuel grade is not measured. 0–100 and consumption are not measured.
Choose 2.4 AT when the arithmetic on power and mass matters more than the 190 km/h Manual peak. You get 156 hp and 213 Nm from 2378 cm³, Automatic 6, FWD, 1545 kg — 5 kg over 2.0 AT, 20 hp and 33 Nm more, ≈9.90 kg/hp versus ≈11.3 on the 2.0 Automatic. Top speed is 180 km/h. Fuel is Gasoline 95. Eco class is not measured. Engine layout is recorded as Front, transverse (not measured on the 2.0 pair). Boost remains No.
Do not choose on mpg, 0–100, wheels or payload. Those values are not measured. Do not choose on generation. There is only 1 generation and three Sedan versions.
Short ranking by the figures that exist:
1. Lightest / highest top speed: 2.0 MT (1520 kg, 190 km/h, 136 hp). 2. Strongest / best kg per hp: 2.4 AT (156 hp, 213 Nm, 1545 kg, 180 km/h). 3. Same 2.0 engine as the Manual, with Automatic 6: 2.0 AT (136 hp, 1540 kg, 174 km/h).
That is the whole decision space in the data: one Sedan generation, 2012–2015, three named versions, and the gaps are 20 hp, 33 Nm, 381 cm³, 5-speed Manual vs 6-speed Automatic, 16 km/h of top speed between 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT, and 25 kg of kerb weight from lightest to heaviest.