Great Wall Hover

Great Wall Hover: which version to buy

The Great Wall Hover existed as 1 generation of SUV 5-doors from 2005-04-01 to 2010-09-30, with 6 versions, all Manual 5-speed. There is no second generation in these data, so the buying choice is among engines and drive layouts, not among model years of a later body. Every version is named exactly as in the catalogue: 2.0 MT, four 2.4 MT tunes, and 2.8 MT.

The Great Wall Hover existed as 1 generation of SUV 5-doors from 2005-04-01 to 2010-09-30, with 6 versions, all Manual 5-speed. There is no second generation in these data, so the buying choice is among engines and drive layouts, not among model years of a later body. Every version is named exactly as in the catalogue: 2.0 MT, four 2.4 MT tunes, and 2.8 MT. The four 2.4 MT cars share a name and must be split by power: 126 hp, 128 hp, 130 hp (98 kW), and 130 hp (96 kW).

If the question is only “which Hover,” the short answer from the numbers is: 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW) if you want the lightest petrol AWD package by kg per horsepower; 2.4 MT 130 hp (96 kW) if you want the only RWD car and the only 2.4 with measured fuel use; 2.0 MT if you want the highest power per litre and measured mixed consumption on AWD; 2.8 MT only if diesel torque at low rpm matters more than 0–100 and top speed.

Generations

1 generation (2005-04-01 – 2010-09-30) is the whole model. Body is SUV 5-doors. There are 6 versions in one window; none of the six has a later start or stop date, so a “facelift year” cannot be used as a filter. What changes between cars is engine, drive, rear suspension, and (where given) consumption — not generation count.

Engines and specs

2.0 MT is the only petrol with 2 valves per cylinder; all 2.4 MT and the 2.8 MT list 4. 2.0 MT is specified for 95 petrol; every 2.4 MT for 92. 2.8 MT is Diesel with Turbo; every petrol lists boost No.

Engine placement is Front, longitudinal on 2.4 MT 126 hp, 2.4 MT 128 hp, 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW), and 2.8 MT. It is not measured on 2.0 MT and on 2.4 MT 130 hp (96 kW). Compression ratio is 9.5 on all four 2.4 MT and 17.2 on 2.8 MT; it is not measured on 2.0 MT. Bore × stroke is 86.5 × 100 on the three AWD 2.4 MT petrols and 87.6 × 107.3 on 2.8 MT; it is not measured on 2.0 MT and on 2.4 MT 130 hp (96 kW).

Power per litre (hp ÷ displacement in litres): 2.0 MT 61.1 hp/L; 2.4 MT 126 hp 53.6 hp/L; 2.4 MT 128 hp 54.4 hp/L; both 2.4 MT 130 hp cars 55.3 hp/L; 2.8 MT 34.3 hp/L. The smallest petrol is the most specific-output engine in the line; the diesel is the least.

Kerb weight per horsepower: 2.0 MT 15.0 kg/hp (1830 ÷ 122); 2.4 MT 126 hp 14.5 kg/hp; 2.4 MT 128 hp 14.3 kg/hp; both 130 hp petrols 14.1 kg/hp; 2.8 MT 19.8 kg/hp (1880 ÷ 95). On paper the 130 hp petrols carry the least mass per horsepower; the diesel carries the most.

Peak torque arrives earliest on 2.8 MT (225 Nm at 1600–2600 rpm). Petrol peaks are later: 2.0 MT 185 Nm at 3000–4500; the three AWD 2.4 MT 190 Nm at 2500; RWD 2.4 MT 192 Nm at 2500. The diesel’s extra 40 Nm versus 2.0 MT and 33–35 Nm versus the 2.4 MT cars is the only powertrain argument for 2.8 MT.

Peak power rpm: 2.0 MT 6000; 2.4 MT 126 hp 5250; the three remaining 2.4 MT 5000; 2.8 MT 3600. Buying a 2.4 MT instead of 2.0 MT buys 4–8 hp and 5–7 Nm, not a different gearbox (all Manual 5) and, on AWD cars, not a different drive type.

The three AWD 2.4 MT petrols differ by 2 hp then 2 hp again (126 → 128 → 130) at the same 190 Nm, same 2351 cc, same AWD. 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW) is 4 kW above 126 hp (93 kW) and 4 kW above 128 hp (94 kW). 2.4 MT 130 hp (96 kW) is the same 130 hp as the 98 kW car but 2 kW lower on the kW line, +2 Nm (192 vs 190), and RWD instead of AWD.

Performance and economy (0-100, top speed, mpg)

0–100 km/h is 11 s on every petrol version (2.0 MT and all four 2.4 MT). 2.8 MT is 20 s — 9 s slower. Extra displacement on the petrol side does not buy a shorter 0–100 figure in these data.

Top speed is 170 km/h on every petrol and 140 km/h on 2.8 MT (30 km/h lower).

Fuel consumption is measured on two cars only. 2.0 MT (AWD): city 14, highway 8.8, mixed 10. 2.4 MT 130 hp (96 kW, RWD): city 13, highway 8.8, mixed 10. City use on the RWD 2.4 MT is 1 unit lower than on 2.0 MT; highway and mixed match. For 2.4 MT 126 hp, 2.4 MT 128 hp, 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW), and 2.8 MT, city, highway, and mixed are all not measured. CO2 and eco class are not measured on all six.

A 74-litre tank at mixed 10 (the two measured petrols) is the same tank size as on the four cars with not measured consumption. You cannot rank 2.8 MT or the AWD 2.4 MT petrols on economy from these figures.

Dimensions and weight

Kerb weight is 1830 kg on 2.0 MT and all four 2.4 MT; 2.8 MT is 1880 kg (+50 kg). Gross weight is 2305 kg on the five petrols and 2510 kg on 2.8 MT (+205 kg). Payload by subtraction: petrols 475 kg (2305 − 1830); diesel 630 kg (2510 − 1880) — 155 kg more rated load on 2.8 MT.

Ground clearance is 200 mm on all six. Tank is 74 litres on all six. Wheel sizes are not measured on all six.

Front suspension is Independent, torsion on all six. Rear suspension splits the buy: Independent, spring on 2.0 MT and on 2.4 MT 130 hp (96 kW, RWD); Dependent, spring on 2.4 MT 126 hp, 2.4 MT 128 hp, 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW), and 2.8 MT. Front brakes are Ventilated disc and rear Disc on all six.

Which version to choose

There is only 1 generation, so “newer generation” is not a lever. The comparison is six cars in one SUV 5-doors window.

Choose 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW) AWD if the goal is the strongest AWD petrol in the table: 130 hp / 98 kW, 190 Nm, 14.1 kg/hp, same 11 s and 170 km/h as weaker petrols. Versus 2.4 MT 126 hp that is +4 hp and +5 kW at the same 190 Nm and the same Dependent, spring rear. Versus 2.4 MT 128 hp it is +2 hp and +4 kW. Economy for this car is not measured, so you are not buying a documented mpg gain over 2.0 MT.

Choose 2.4 MT 130 hp (96 kW) RWD if you want the only rear-drive Hover and the only 2.4 with consumption numbers: city 13, highway 8.8, mixed 10. It matches the other 130 hp car on horsepower and kerb weight, adds 2 Nm (192 vs 190), drops 2 kW (96 vs 98), and is the only 2.4 MT with Independent, spring rear — the same rear type as 2.0 MT, not the Dependent, spring rear of the AWD 2.4 MT cars. You give up AWD. Engine location and bore × stroke are not measured on this version.

Choose 2.0 MT if specific output and a documented AWD consumption matter more than peak horsepower. It is 122 hp from 1997 cc (61.1 hp/L), 4.1 hp/L above the best 2.4 MT, with city 14 / highway 8.8 / mixed 10, AWD, Independent, spring rear, and 95 petrol (the 2.4 MT cars specify 92). Versus the strongest AWD 2.4 MT you lose 8 hp and 5 Nm and sit at 15.0 kg/hp instead of 14.1. 0–100 stays 11 s; top speed stays 170. Valves per cylinder are 2, not 4. Compression ratio, engine location, and bore × stroke are not measured.

Do not treat 2.4 MT 126 hp or 2.4 MT 128 hp as a different class of car. Both are AWD, 2351 cc, 190 Nm, Manual 5, Dependent, spring rear, 11 s, 170 km/h, consumption not measured. 126 hp is 4 hp and 5 kW below the 130 hp (98 kW) AWD; 128 hp is 2 hp and 4 kW below it. Unless a specific car of those tunes is the one in front of you, the numbers do not justify preferring them over 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW).

Choose 2.8 MT only for diesel torque and rated load. It has 225 Nm from 1600–2600 rpm, Turbo, Diesel, compression 17.2, AWD, kerb 1880 kg, gross 2510 kg, payload 630 kg. The costs in these data are 95 hp, 19.8 kg/hp, 20 s to 100, 140 km/h top speed, Dependent, spring rear, and consumption not measured. Versus 2.0 MT that is −27 hp, +40 Nm, +9 s, −30 km/h, +50 kg kerb, +205 kg gross. Versus 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW) it is −35 hp, +35 Nm, same gaps on 0–100 and top speed.

If AWD is required: the set is 2.0 MT, 2.4 MT 126 hp, 2.4 MT 128 hp, 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW), 2.8 MT. Among petrol AWD, 2.4 MT 130 hp (98 kW) wins power and kg/hp; 2.0 MT wins measured mixed consumption and independent rear. If RWD is required: only 2.4 MT 130 hp (96 kW). If diesel is required: only 2.8 MT. If you need a published city/highway/mixed trio: only 2.0 MT and 2.4 MT 130 hp (96 kW).

Prices are not in these data, so “what extra money buys” can only be read as what extra displacement and drive buy: 354 cc from 2.0 MT to 2.4 MT buys 4–8 hp and 5–7 Nm with no change in 0–100 or top speed; 774 cc and Turbo from 2.0 MT to 2.8 MT buys 40 Nm and 155 kg extra payload and costs 27 hp, 9 s, and 30 km/h. Wheel sizes, CO2, and eco class remain not measured on every version, so they cannot break a tie.