Great Wall Hover H3

Great Wall Hover H3: Which Version Should You Buy?

The Great Wall Hover H3 was offered as an SUV 5-doors from July 2010 through July 2016, with the original 1 generation followed by its restyling. Choosing between its versions comes down to three clear priorities. The 150 hp 2.0 MT restyling is the strongest and most torque-rich option, producing 250 Nm and returning the lowest listed combined consumption at 8.7 l/100 km.

The Great Wall Hover H3 was offered as an SUV 5-doors from July 2010 through July 2016, with the original 1 generation followed by its restyling. Choosing between its versions comes down to three clear priorities. The 150 hp 2.0 MT restyling is the strongest and most torque-rich option, producing 250 Nm and returning the lowest listed combined consumption at 8.7 l/100 km. The 116 hp 2.0 MT restyling combines 240 mm of ground clearance with a listed 13.5-second 0–100 km/h time. Among the earlier vehicles, the 134 hp 2.4 MT has the largest engine and more torque than either naturally aspirated 2.0 MT, while the 122 hp 2.0 MT is the only early version with both measured acceleration and top-speed figures.

Generations and the differences that matter

The original 1 generation ran from July 2010 to June 2014 as an SUV 5-doors and included three versions: a 122 hp 2.0 MT, a 115 hp 2.0 MT, and a 134 hp 2.4 MT. Every version has AWD, a 5-speed Manual gearbox, independent torsion front suspension, dependent leaf-spring rear suspension, disc front and rear brakes, and 200 mm of ground clearance.

The 1 generation restyling ran from July 2014 to July 2016, retaining the SUV 5-doors body but reducing the range to two versions. Its naturally aspirated 2.0 MT produces 116 hp, while the turbocharged 2.0 MT produces 150 hp. The restyling raised ground clearance from 200 to 240 mm, replaced the dependent leaf-spring rear suspension with a dependent spring arrangement, and specified ventilated disc brakes at both ends. Kerb weight, gross weight and fuel-tank capacity remained listed at 1905 kg, 2305 kg and 74 l respectively.

Great Wall Hover H3 engine and transmission specs

All five entries use Gasoline, four Inline cylinders with four valves per cylinder, a front longitudinal engine position, distributed multi-point injection and AWD. The exact 2.0 MT name applies to four different power outputs, so year range, power and boost are essential when identifying the version.

The naturally aspirated 2.0 MT versions make approximately 57.6–61.1 hp per litre. The early 2.4 MT produces approximately 56.3 hp per litre, whereas the turbocharged restyled 2.0 MT reaches approximately 75.1 hp per litre. It therefore supplies 34 hp and 75 Nm more than the other restyled 2.0 MT without increasing displacement. It also adds one transmission ratio through its 6-speed Manual gearbox.

Compared with the early 122 hp 2.0 MT, the early 134 hp 2.4 MT adds 381 cc, 12 hp and 25 Nm. Its advantage is additional torque rather than greater specific output: it produces about 56.3 hp per litre versus about 61.1 hp per litre for the 122 hp engine.

Performance, fuel economy and mpg-related figures

The turbocharged 150 hp 2.0 MT has the best listed combined figure, using 0.4 l/100 km less than the 116 hp restyled version and 3.2 l/100 km less than the early 122 hp version. In city driving, its listed 10.6 l/100 km is 2.4 l/100 km below the restyled 116 hp version’s 13 l/100 km. On the highway, however, the 116 hp version has the lower figure: 6.8 versus 7.4 l/100 km.

Extra power does not correspond to quicker measured acceleration in the restyled pair. The 116 hp 2.0 MT is listed at 13.5 seconds, while the 150 hp 2.0 MT is listed at 14 seconds. These are the supplied measurements; no explanation for the difference is provided. Likewise, the 134 hp 2.4 MT cannot be ranked for acceleration, maximum speed or consumption because all those figures are not measured.

Weight, ground clearance, tank and wheel sizes

Every Hover H3 version listed here has a kerb weight of 1905 kg, a gross weight of 2305 kg and a 74 l fuel tank. The gross-minus-kerb difference is 400 kg across the range. Wheel sizes are not measured for any version.

Because weight is unchanged, power-to-weight comparisons are direct. The 115 hp 2.0 MT carries about 16.6 kg per hp, the 116 hp version about 16.4 kg per hp, the 122 hp version about 15.6 kg per hp, the 134 hp 2.4 MT about 14.2 kg per hp, and the 150 hp turbo 2.0 MT about 12.7 kg per hp. On this measure, the 150 hp version has the strongest specification.

Ground clearance is the major generation-based difference. Every July 2010–June 2014 version has 200 mm, while both July 2014–July 2016 restyled versions have 240 mm. The restyling therefore adds 40 mm of listed clearance, regardless of which engine is selected.

Problems and reliability

Problems and reliability are not measured in the supplied data. The specifications therefore do not establish which engine, gearbox, suspension arrangement or production period is more reliable. They also provide no basis for claims about repair frequency, component life or maintenance cost. A buying decision based on this catalogue can compare performance, consumption, clearance and mechanical layout, but not condition or reliability.

Which Great Wall Hover H3 version should you buy?

Choose the restyled 2.0 MT with 150 hp if the broadest numerical advantage matters most. It has the range’s highest output at 150 hp, highest torque at 250 Nm, best power-to-weight result at about 12.7 kg per hp, lowest listed combined consumption at 8.7 l/100 km, a 6-speed Manual gearbox and 240 mm of clearance. Its trade-offs are a listed 14-second 0–100 km/h time and a top speed that is not measured.

Choose the restyled 2.0 MT with 116 hp if you want the 240 mm clearance and restyled suspension and brake specifications without Turbo. It matches the early 115 hp version’s 175 Nm, 160 km/h top speed and 9.1 l/100 km combined consumption, adds 1 hp, and has a measured 13.5-second acceleration time. Compared with the turbo version, it gives up 34 hp and 75 Nm but uses 0.6 l/100 km less on the highway.

Choose the early 2.0 MT with 122 hp when measured maximum speed is the priority. Its listed 180 km/h is 20 km/h above the measured maximum of the 115 hp early version and the 116 hp restyled version. It also records 13.5 seconds to 100 km/h, but its 11.9 l/100 km combined consumption is the highest measured combined figure.

Choose the early 2.0 MT with 115 hp for the lowest measured highway consumption among the original-generation versions. Its 6.8 l/100 km highway and 9.1 l/100 km combined figures equal those of the 116 hp restyled version. It retains 200 mm of clearance, a 5-speed Manual gearbox and the early dependent leaf-spring rear suspension; its acceleration is not measured.

Choose the early 2.4 MT with 134 hp if a naturally aspirated engine with the largest displacement and strongest naturally aspirated torque is the goal. Its 2378 cc engine produces 200 Nm, which is 25 Nm more than each naturally aspirated 2.0 MT. The limitation is missing comparative evidence: acceleration, top speed and every consumption figure are not measured.

On the available numbers alone, the 150 hp restyled 2.0 MT is the strongest all-round specification. The 116 hp restyled 2.0 MT is the more relevant alternative for buyers prioritizing the lower measured highway-consumption figure and a non-turbo engine, while the original-generation choices make sense only when their particular engine output, measured top speed or 2.4-litre displacement is more important than the restyling’s additional 40 mm of ground clearance.