Great Wall Hover M2: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Great Wall Hover M2 was produced from February 2013 through December 2014 in a single generation, exclusively as an Estate 5-door. Its three listed versions all carry the exact name 1.5 MT, so the meaningful distinctions are power, drive system, kerb weight, ground clearance, fuel-consumption data, and emissions classification.
The Great Wall Hover M2 was produced from February 2013 through December 2014 in a single generation, exclusively as an Estate 5-door. Its three listed versions all carry the exact name 1.5 MT, so the meaningful distinctions are power, drive system, kerb weight, ground clearance, fuel-consumption data, and emissions classification. For most buyers, the 1.5 MT with 105 hp and FWD is the strongest all-round choice: it matches the AWD version’s power and combined consumption while retaining the lower-complexity FWD layout. The 105 hp AWD version is the one to choose when AWD matters more than its higher city consumption, while the 98 hp FWD version has the heaviest kerb weight, the lowest clearance, and no measured fuel-consumption figures.
Hover M2 versions at a glance
All three Great Wall Hover M2 versions belong to the same generation, produced from February 2013 to December 2014. Consequently, there is no choice to make between generations or restylings in the supplied data. Every version is an Estate 5-door, and all three use a front, transverse 1,497 cc Gasoline engine, a 5-speed Manual gearbox, and the exact database name 1.5 MT.
The two 105 hp versions differ primarily in drive: one is FWD and the other is AWD. The remaining 1.5 MT combines 98 hp with FWD. Power therefore varies by 7 hp across the range, but torque remains 138 Nm for every version.
Engine and specs comparison
| Exact version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 MT (105 hp, FWD) | 105 hp / 77 kW at 6,000 rpm | 138 Nm at 4,200 rpm | 1,497 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline; front, transverse | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.5 MT (105 hp, AWD) | 105 hp / 77 kW at 6,000 rpm | 138 Nm at 4,200 rpm | 1,497 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline; front, transverse | No | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| 1.5 MT (98 hp, FWD) | 98 hp / 72 kW at 6,000 rpm | 138 Nm at 4,200 rpm | 1,497 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline; front, transverse | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
Each engine has 4 valves per cylinder, No boost, and Distributed injection (multi-point). The 105 hp units produce approximately 70.1 hp per litre, whereas the 98 hp unit produces approximately 65.5 hp per litre. The stronger engine therefore provides about 4.7 additional hp per litre.
The peak-output points do not distinguish the versions: maximum power arrives at 6,000 rpm and maximum torque at 4,200 rpm in all three. Likewise, the 138 Nm torque figure means the 98 hp version does not give up any listed peak torque to either 105 hp alternative.
Performance, fuel economy and mpg data
The supplied performance figures are identical for all three 1.5 MT versions: acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h takes 14.7 seconds, and top speed is 158 km/h. On these measurements, neither the 7 hp power difference nor the choice between FWD and AWD produces a recorded acceleration or maximum-speed advantage.
| Exact version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 MT (105 hp, FWD) | 14.7 sec | 158 km/h | 8.8 | 6.9 | 7.4 |
| 1.5 MT (105 hp, AWD) | 14.7 sec | 158 km/h | 9.2 | 5.9 | 7.4 |
| 1.5 MT (98 hp, FWD) | 14.7 sec | 158 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
The 105 hp FWD version uses 0.4 less than the 105 hp AWD version in the city: 8.8 versus 9.2. The AWD version, however, records a highway figure 1.0 lower than the FWD version: 5.9 versus 6.9. Both return the same combined figure of 7.4.
Fuel consumption for the 98 hp FWD version is not measured in city, highway, and combined operation. Its mpg-equivalent economy therefore cannot be compared from the supplied data without introducing unsupported numbers.
CO₂ output is not measured for every version. The eco class is not measured for both 105 hp versions, while the 98 hp FWD version is listed as Euro 4.
Dimensions, weight and ground clearance
No exterior length, width, height, or wheelbase measurements are supplied, so each of those dimensions is not measured. Wheel sizes are also not measured across the range.
| Exact version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 MT (105 hp, FWD) | 1,170 kg | 1,577 kg | 200 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.5 MT (105 hp, AWD) | 1,170 kg | 1,577 kg | 200 mm | 45 L | not measured |
| 1.5 MT (98 hp, FWD) | 1,250 kg | 1,577 kg | 160 mm | 45 L | not measured |
The two 105 hp versions are identical in listed kerb weight and clearance. Each weighs 1,170 kg and provides 200 mm of ground clearance. Their weight-to-power figure is approximately 11.1 kg per hp.
The 98 hp FWD version weighs 1,250 kg, making it 80 kg heavier than either 105 hp model despite producing 7 hp less. Its weight-to-power figure is approximately 12.8 kg per hp, around 1.6 kg per hp higher than that of the 105 hp versions. It also has 160 mm of clearance, which is 40 mm less than the 200 mm available with either 105 hp version.
Gross weight is 1,577 kg and fuel capacity is 45 L for all three. Subtracting kerb weight from gross weight gives a difference of 407 kg for each 105 hp version and 327 kg for the 98 hp version.
Suspension and brake specs
Every Hover M2 version uses Independent, torsion front suspension and the database-listed Semi-independent rear suspension. Front brakes are Disc, and rear brakes are Drum. Because these specifications do not vary between the three entries, suspension and brake type provide no basis for choosing one version over another.
Which Great Wall Hover M2 version should you buy?
Choose the 1.5 MT (105 hp, FWD) for the best numerical balance. It has the joint-highest output at 105 hp, the joint-lowest kerb weight at 1,170 kg, and the joint-highest clearance at 200 mm. It also records the lowest city consumption at 8.8, while its combined figure of 7.4 equals that of the AWD version. No measured performance is sacrificed: its 14.7-second 0–100 km/h time and 158 km/h top speed match every other version.
Choose the 1.5 MT (105 hp, AWD) specifically for AWD. Compared with the 105 hp FWD model, it retains the same 1,170 kg kerb weight, 200 mm clearance, 138 Nm torque, 14.7-second acceleration time, 158 km/h top speed, and 7.4 combined consumption. The measured trade-off is city consumption of 9.2 rather than 8.8, although its highway figure is 5.9 rather than 6.9.
The 1.5 MT (98 hp, FWD) is harder to recommend from the available specifications alone. It produces 7 hp less, weighs 80 kg more, and has 40 mm less ground clearance than either 105 hp version. Its listed acceleration and top speed are unchanged, and it is the only Euro 4 entry, but city, highway, and combined fuel consumption are all not measured. Unless the Euro 4 listing is the deciding specification, the 105 hp FWD version offers the clearest advantage on the supplied numbers.
Reliability, problems, equipment levels, prices, and sale offers cannot be used to separate these versions because no such data were provided. The buying decision therefore comes down to a straightforward comparison: 105 hp FWD for the strongest overall specification, 105 hp AWD when AWD is required, and 98 hp FWD only when its Euro 4 classification outweighs its additional weight and reduced clearance.