Gonow Troy: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Gonow Troy has two versions to compare: 2.2 MT and 2.8 MT. Both belong to the same generation, use the same Pickup double-cab body, and combine a 5-speed Manual gearbox with RWD. The 2.2 MT is the more powerful option, producing 75 hp, while the 2.8 MT develops 70 hp but offers the stronger torque figure at 206 Nm.
The Gonow Troy has two versions to compare: 2.2 MT and 2.8 MT. Both belong to the same generation, use the same Pickup double-cab body, and combine a 5-speed Manual gearbox with RWD. The 2.2 MT is the more powerful option, producing 75 hp, while the 2.8 MT develops 70 hp but offers the stronger torque figure at 206 Nm. The choice therefore depends less on body style, transmission, or drive layout—which are identical—and more on whether power or torque matters most to the buyer.
Gonow Troy generations and versions
The Troy has one generation in the supplied catalogue data. The 1 generation started production in 2008 and has no recorded end date. It is a Pickup double-cab with two versions: 2.2 MT and 2.8 MT.
There is no second generation to compare and no restyling listed. Consequently, choosing a Troy means comparing the two engines within the same generation rather than weighing changes in body type, transmission, or drivetrain between different generations.
Gonow Troy engine and specs comparison
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.2 MT | 75 hp (55 kW) at 4600 rpm | 190 Nm at 2200 rpm | 2200 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 2.8 MT | 70 hp (51 kW) at 3600 rpm | 206 Nm at 2200 rpm | 2800 cc | Diesel | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
The 2.2 MT has 5 hp and 4 kW more than the 2.8 MT, despite having 600 cc less displacement. Its specific output is about 34.1 hp per litre, compared with 25 hp per litre for the 2.8 MT. On power per litre, the Gasoline version has an advantage of about 9.1 hp per litre.
The 2.8 MT reverses that comparison for torque. Its 206 Nm output is 16 Nm higher than the 190 Nm produced by the 2.2 MT. Both reach peak torque at 2200 rpm, so the Diesel version provides the larger catalogue torque figure at the same stated engine speed.
Peak power occurs at 4600 rpm in the 2.2 MT and at 3600 rpm in the 2.8 MT, a difference of 1000 rpm. These figures indicate where the catalogue records each engine’s maximum output; they do not provide acceleration or real-world responsiveness measurements.
The engines also differ in their available technical detail. The 2.2 MT is listed with Distributed injection (multi-point) and 2 valves per cylinder. The fuel-system type and valves per cylinder for the 2.8 MT are not measured. Both engines have 4 cylinders in an Inline layout and No boost.
Performance, mpg, and economy
For the 2.2 MT, acceleration from zero to 100 km/h is not measured, top speed is not measured, and city, highway, and combined fuel consumption are not measured. A direct mpg figure therefore cannot be calculated from the supplied data.
For the 2.8 MT, acceleration from zero to 100 km/h is not measured, top speed is not measured, and city, highway, and combined fuel consumption are not measured. Its mpg figure is likewise not measured.
The available specifications do not support a claim that either version is quicker or more economical. The 2.2 MT has 5 hp more, but no acceleration or top-speed result confirms a performance advantage. The 2.8 MT uses Diesel and has 16 Nm more torque, but no consumption result confirms an economy advantage. Both versions are listed as Euro 3.
Dimensions, weight, and ground clearance
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Weight per horsepower* | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.2 MT | not measured | 1520 kg | about 20.3 kg/hp | 185 mm | not measured | not measured |
| 2.8 MT | not measured | 1520 kg | about 21.7 kg/hp | 185 mm | not measured | not measured |
\*Calculated from the listed gross weight and power because kerb weight is not measured.
Both versions have the same listed gross weight of 1520 kg and the same ground clearance of 185 mm. The 2.2 MT carries about 20.3 kg of gross weight per horsepower, while the 2.8 MT carries about 21.7 kg per horsepower. That gives the 2.2 MT an advantage of roughly 1.4 kg per horsepower by this gross-weight calculation.
Kerb weight is not measured for either version. Fuel-tank capacity and wheel sizes are also not measured. Overall length, width, and height are not measured in the supplied data, so a complete exterior-dimensions comparison is unavailable.
The chassis specifications do not separate the two choices. Both have Independent, spring front suspension, front Disc brakes, and rear Drum brakes. Rear-suspension type is not measured for either version.
Gonow Troy reliability and problems
Reliability results and recorded problems are not measured for either 2.2 MT or 2.8 MT. The supplied specifications contain no repair-frequency, durability, maintenance-cost, or fault data. It would therefore be unsupported to describe one engine as more reliable than the other.
The comparison can establish only their documented mechanical differences: the 2.2 MT is Gasoline, produces 75 hp and 190 Nm, and uses Distributed injection (multi-point); the 2.8 MT is Diesel and produces 70 hp and 206 Nm. Reliability should not be inferred from those specifications alone.
Which Gonow Troy version should you buy?
Choose the 2.2 MT if the priority is the higher power figure and stronger calculated power-to-gross-weight result. It offers 75 hp, which is 5 hp more than the 2.8 MT, and approximately 34.1 hp per litre. With the common 1520 kg gross weight, it works out at about 20.3 kg per horsepower. It is also the version with Distributed injection (multi-point) and 2 valves per cylinder explicitly recorded.
Choose the 2.8 MT if the priority is the highest available torque figure. It produces 206 Nm, giving it a 16 Nm advantage over the 2.2 MT, and both versions reach peak torque at 2200 rpm. The 2.8 MT is the Diesel option, although its fuel consumption and mpg are not measured, so the data cannot establish that it will cost less to run.
The most defensible all-round choice from the available numbers is the 2.2 MT when power matters: it has more horsepower from a smaller displacement and a better gross-weight-per-horsepower result. The clearest reason to select the 2.8 MT instead is its higher torque output. Price data is not provided, so it is not possible to say what extra money either engine requires or whether that difference represents good value.