Great Wall Hover H5

Great Wall Hover H5: which version to buy and why

If you are choosing a Great Wall Hover H5, you are not choosing between generations. There is 1 generation (February 2011–July 2016), one body — SUV 5-doors — and 6 versions that all use AWD. The real choice is diesel versus gasoline, 150 hp versus 143 hp versus 136 hp versus 127 hp, and Automatic versus Manual.

If you are choosing a Great Wall Hover H5, you are not choosing between generations. There is 1 generation (February 2011–July 2016), one body — SUV 5-doors — and 6 versions that all use AWD. The real choice is diesel versus gasoline, 150 hp versus 143 hp versus 136 hp versus 127 hp, and Automatic versus Manual. The numbers below are taken only from the catalogue data; where a figure is missing it is written as not measured.

Hover H5 specs that actually separate the six versions

All six versions share a front, longitudinal four-cylinder engine, 4 valves per cylinder, and the same AWD layout. They do not share power, mass, tank-to-consumption arithmetic, or ground clearance.

Injection is not measured on all four diesels. Both gasoline 2.4 MT versions use distributed injection (multi-point). Compression ratio and bore × stroke are not measured on every version. CO2 is not measured on every version. Eco class is Euro 4 only on 2.4 MT (127 hp); it is not measured on the other five.

Engine: diesel 1996 cc versus gasoline 2378 cc

Specific output (hp per litre of displacement):

• 2.0 AT (150 hp) and 2.0 MT (150 hp): 150 / 1.996 ≈ 75.2 hp/L
• 2.0 MT (143 hp) and 2.0 AT (143 hp): 143 / 1.996 ≈ 71.6 hp/L
• 2.4 MT (136 hp): 136 / 2.378 ≈ 57.2 hp/L
• 2.4 MT (127 hp): 127 / 2.378 ≈ 53.4 hp/L

The 150 hp diesel pair extracts about 18.0 hp/L more than the 136 hp gasoline 2.4 MT, and about 21.8 hp/L more than the 127 hp 2.4 MT. Torque is the larger gap: both diesel families make 310 Nm; both gasoline 2.4 MT versions make 205 Nm — 105 Nm less (about 34% less). Peak diesel torque on the 150 hp pair arrives from 1800 rpm; on the 143 hp pair it is quoted at a single point of 2800 rpm. Gasoline torque sits at 2500–3000 rpm and needs 5000 rpm for peak power, versus 4000 rpm on every diesel.

Boost is Turbo on all four 2.0 diesels and No on both 2.4 gasoline versions. Fuel grade: Diesel on all 2.0 versions; 92 on 2.4 MT (136 hp); 95 on 2.4 MT (127 hp).

Performance and mpg: what 0–100, top speed and consumption actually show

0–100 km/h is 11 s on five versions. On 2.4 MT (127 hp) 0–100 is not measured — that is not the same as “slow”; the figure is simply absent.

Top speed:

• 170 km/h on all four diesels
• 160 km/h on both 2.4 MT gasoline versions — 10 km/h less

Consumption (city / highway / combined, L/100 km):

• All four diesels: 8.9 / 7.6 / 8.4
• 2.4 MT (136 hp): 10.7 / 8.2 / 9.4
• 2.4 MT (127 hp): 8.5 / 13.7 / 10.3

Combined, the 136 hp gasoline 2.4 MT uses 1.0 L/100 km more than any diesel (9.4 versus 8.4). The 127 hp 2.4 MT uses 1.9 L/100 km more combined (10.3 versus 8.4). City figures invert one ranking: 2.4 MT (127 hp) is the lowest city number at 8.5, 0.4 below the diesels’ 8.9, but its highway figure is 13.7 — 6.1 above the diesels’ 7.6 and 5.5 above the 136 hp gasoline highway 8.2. Treat that 127 hp highway number as a measured outlier in this set, not as “the efficient petrol.”

Tank is 70 L on every version. Approximate combined range from 70 L:

• diesels at 8.4 L/100 km: 70 / 8.4 × 100 ≈ 833 km
• 2.4 MT (136 hp) at 9.4: ≈ 745 km — about 88 km less
• 2.4 MT (127 hp) at 10.3: ≈ 680 km — about 153 km less than the diesels

Dimensions, weight and ground clearance: payload is the hidden split inside the diesels

Wheel size is not measured on every version.

Kerb / gross / clearance:

The 143 hp diesels are 115 kg heavier at the kerb than the 150 hp diesels (1995 versus 1880) but 270 kg heavier at gross (2550 versus 2280). Payload is therefore 555 kg versus 400 kg — 155 kg more on the 143 hp pair. That is the one place where the “weaker” diesel buys more than the “stronger” diesel: carrying capacity, not speed (both 11 s and 170 km/h).

The lightest kerb is 2.4 MT (136 hp) at 1805 kg — 75 kg under the 150 hp diesels and 190 kg under the 143 hp diesels. Its payload of 475 kg sits between the two diesel pairs.

2.4 MT (127 hp) is the only version with 180 mm clearance — 20 mm less than the other five (200 mm). Its gross mass is not measured, so payload cannot be calculated.

Mass per horsepower (kerb / hp):

• 2.0 AT / 2.0 MT (150 hp): 1880 / 150 ≈ 12.5 kg/hp (best)
• 2.4 MT (136 hp): 1805 / 136 ≈ 13.3 kg/hp
• 2.0 MT / 2.0 AT (143 hp): 1995 / 143 ≈ 14.0 kg/hp
• 2.4 MT (127 hp): 1880 / 127 ≈ 14.8 kg/hp (worst)

Chassis hardware does not choose the version: independent, torsion front; dependent, spring rear; ventilated disc front; Disc rear — identical wording on all six.

Automatic vs Manual: what the extra ratio count buys

Inside each diesel power band, 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT do not differ on 0–100 (11 s), top speed (170 km/h), consumption (8.9 / 7.6 / 8.4), tank (70 L), or AWD.

What changes:

• 2.0 AT (150 hp): Automatic, 4 gears; kerb 1880 kg
• 2.0 MT (150 hp): Manual, 5 gears; kerb 1880 kg
• 2.0 AT (143 hp): Automatic, 4 gears; kerb 1995 kg
• 2.0 MT (143 hp): Manual, 5 gears; kerb 1995 kg

The manual adds one gear. It does not add a measured acceleration or economy advantage in this dataset. Choose Automatic if you want four-speed self-shifting with the same measured 11 s / 170 km/h; choose Manual if you want five gears with the same measured 11 s / 170 km/h. There is no gasoline automatic: both 2.4 MT versions are Manual, 5 only.

Which Hover H5 version to choose

If you want the strongest measured engine in this model: 2.0 AT (150 hp) or 2.0 MT (150 hp). They share 150 hp, 310 Nm from 1800 rpm, 75.2 hp/L, 12.5 kg/hp, 170 km/h, 8.4 L/100 km combined, 200 mm clearance, 400 kg payload. Pick AT versus MT only on gearbox (4 Automatic vs 5 Manual).

If you haul more than you sprint: 2.0 AT (143 hp) or 2.0 MT (143 hp). You give up 7 hp versus the 150 hp pair (143 vs 150) and 115 kg extra kerb, and torque is quoted at 2800 rpm rather than a 1800–2800 band. You gain 155 kg of payload (555 vs 400) and 270 kg of gross mass (2550 vs 2280). Acceleration and top speed stay 11 s and 170 km/h; consumption stays 8.9 / 7.6 / 8.4.

If you want gasoline and the lightest kerb: 2.4 MT (136 hp). It is 75 kg lighter than the 150 hp diesels, uses 92, has 475 kg payload, 200 mm clearance, and a measured 11 s to 100. You accept 105 Nm less torque (205 vs 310), 10 km/h less top speed (160 vs 170), 1.0 L/100 km more combined, and 57.2 hp/L instead of 75.2.

If you need the only Euro 4 label in the set: 2.4 MT (127 hp). It is the sole version with eco class Euro 4 and the sole version specified for 95. It is also the weakest (127 hp, 14.8 kg/hp), the only 180 mm clearance, the only not measured 0–100, the only not measured gross mass, and the highest combined consumption at 10.3 L/100 km. Do not pick it for highway mpg: 13.7 L/100 km is the worst highway figure here.

Do not choose by generation. Production is one window: February 2011–July 2016, one SUV 5-doors generation, six versions. Nothing in the data describes a restyle or a second generation, so “newer generation” is not a lever.

Reliability and problems are not measured in this dataset. The comparison above is power, mass, payload, clearance, consumption, and gearbox count — not workshop history.

Short rule: 2.0 AT or 2.0 MT at 150 hp for the best kg/hp and diesel torque; the same names at 143 hp for payload; 2.4 MT at 136 hp for the lightest gasoline AWD; 2.4 MT at 127 hp only if Euro 4 / 95 is the constraint you actually have.