Great Wall Safe: Which Version to Choose
The Great Wall Safe was produced from 2001 to 2009 as a single-generation SUV 5-doors. Its three listed versions share the exact 2.2 MT name, a 2,237 cc Gasoline engine, 105 hp, 190 Nm, a 5-speed Manual gearbox, and no boost.
The Great Wall Safe was produced from 2001 to 2009 as a single-generation SUV 5-doors. Its three listed versions share the exact 2.2 MT name, a 2,237 cc Gasoline engine, 105 hp, 190 Nm, a 5-speed Manual gearbox, and no boost. The meaningful buying decision is therefore between RWD and AWD, followed by the differences in weight, ground clearance, torque delivery, and available fuel-consumption data. The RWD version is the lighter and more economical documented choice; the 1,760 kg AWD version carries more weight, while the other AWD version combines a 1,640 kg kerb weight with 205 mm of ground clearance.
Generation comparison
There is only one generation to compare: the 1 generation, produced from 2001 to 2009. It uses an SUV 5-doors body and contains three versions, all named 2.2 MT. The data does not identify a restyling or provide separate phases within the generation, so no claim can be made that one production period changed the engine, body, drivetrain, or chassis specifications.
Because every version has the same production dates, buyers cannot use the stated model year range to distinguish the three configurations. The database specifications—especially drive type, kerb weight, gross weight, ground clearance, and torque speed—are the useful identifiers.
Engine and drivetrain specs
All three 2.2 MT versions use a naturally aspirated 2,237 cc Gasoline engine with 4 cylinders in an Inline layout, 2 valves per cylinder, and Distributed injection (multi-point). Output is identical at 105 hp and 77 kW at 4,600 rpm, while torque is 190 Nm.
| Version | Identifying specification | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.2 MT | 1,760 kg kerb weight, 200 mm clearance | 105 hp | 190 Nm at 2,400–2,800 rpm | 2,237 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| 2.2 MT | 1,640 kg kerb weight, 200 mm clearance | 105 hp | 190 Nm at 3,200 rpm | 2,237 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 2.2 MT | 1,640 kg kerb weight, 205 mm clearance | 105 hp | 190 Nm at 3,200 rpm | 2,237 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
Each version produces approximately 46.9 hp per litre and 84.9 Nm per litre. There is no power advantage to choosing AWD: drivetrain choice does not change the listed 105 hp or 190 Nm.
The heavier AWD 2.2 MT is the only version whose maximum torque is listed across 2,400–2,800 rpm. Both 1,640 kg versions reach the same 190 Nm at 3,200 rpm. That is a documented difference in the engine specifications, although the data does not provide measurements showing how it changes real-world acceleration or flexibility.
Engine location is Front, transverse for the 1,760 kg AWD version and the RWD version. It is not measured for the 1,640 kg AWD version. Compression ratio is 10.8 and bore and stroke are 79 × 83 for the first two versions; both figures are not measured for the 1,640 kg AWD version.
Performance, fuel economy and mpg
Despite their different drive systems and kerb weights, all three 2.2 MT versions have the same listed performance: acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h takes 17.5 seconds, and top speed is 140 km/h.
| Version | Drive | Kerb weight | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.2 MT, 1,760 kg | AWD | 1,760 kg | 17.5 s | 140 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.2 MT, 1,640 kg | RWD | 1,640 kg | 17.5 s | 140 km/h | 16 L/100 km | 11 L/100 km | 14 L/100 km |
| 2.2 MT, 1,640 kg | AWD | 1,640 kg | 17.5 s | 140 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
The RWD 2.2 MT is the only version with measured consumption figures: 16 L/100 km in the city, 11 L/100 km on the highway, and 14 L/100 km combined. Its city figure is 5 L/100 km higher than its highway figure. Fuel consumption for both AWD versions is not measured, so the data cannot support a numerical fuel-economy comparison between AWD and RWD.
CO₂ output and environmental class are not measured for every version. MPG is also not measured in the supplied data; only the RWD version has consumption values, expressed in L/100 km.
The power-to-weight comparison favors the two lighter configurations. At 1,640 kg, the RWD and lighter AWD versions carry about 15.6 kg per horsepower. The 1,760 kg AWD version carries about 16.8 kg per horsepower. It is 120 kg heavier, or roughly 7.3% heavier, than either 1,640 kg version, yet the listed 0–100 km/h result remains the same.
Dimensions, weight and ground clearance
Body length, width, height, and wheelbase are not measured for all three versions. Wheel sizes are also not measured, so wheel or tyre fitment cannot be compared from this data.
| Version | Drive | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Gross-minus-kerb difference | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.2 MT, 1,760 kg | AWD | 1,760 kg | 2,085 kg | 325 kg | 200 mm | 74 L | not measured |
| 2.2 MT, 1,640 kg | RWD | 1,640 kg | 1,760 kg | 120 kg | 200 mm | 74 L | not measured |
| 2.2 MT, 1,640 kg | AWD | 1,640 kg | 2,085 kg | 445 kg | 205 mm | 74 L | not measured |
The lighter AWD 2.2 MT has the largest gross-minus-kerb difference at 445 kg. This is 120 kg more than the 325 kg difference of the heavier AWD version and 325 kg more than the RWD version’s 120 kg difference. These are arithmetic differences between the listed weights, not separate payload ratings supplied by the data.
Ground clearance is 200 mm for the heavier AWD version and the RWD version. The lighter AWD version provides 205 mm, only 5 mm more. All three carry the same 74 L fuel tank, so none offers additional listed fuel capacity.
Suspension, brakes, problems and reliability
Every version has Independent, torsion front suspension and Ventilated disc front brakes. The 1,760 kg AWD 2.2 MT and the RWD 2.2 MT also list Dependent, spring rear suspension and Disc rear brakes. Rear suspension and rear brake type are not measured for the 1,640 kg AWD version.
Problems, fault frequency, repair history, component life, and reliability ratings are not measured in the supplied data. Consequently, no version can be called more reliable, cheaper to maintain, or less troublesome on the basis of these specifications alone.
Which Great Wall Safe 2.2 MT should you buy?
Choose the RWD 2.2 MT with 1,640 kg kerb weight and 200 mm ground clearance if measured fuel economy matters most. It is the only version with documented city, highway, and combined consumption, and it is 120 kg lighter than the heavier AWD alternative. It retains the same 105 hp, 190 Nm, 17.5-second 0–100 km/h time, 140 km/h top speed, and 74 L tank as the others.
Choose the AWD 2.2 MT with 1,640 kg kerb weight and 205 mm ground clearance if AWD is required without accepting the additional 120 kg of the other AWD specification. It also has the highest listed clearance, although its advantage is just 5 mm. The trade-off is incomplete data: fuel consumption, engine location, compression ratio, bore and stroke, rear suspension, and rear brake type are all not measured.
Choose the AWD 2.2 MT with 1,760 kg kerb weight and 200 mm ground clearance if its broader listed torque range of 2,400–2,800 rpm is the deciding specification. It is the heaviest option and has the least favorable weight-per-horsepower figure, but it provides more complete engine and chassis data than the lighter AWD version.
No price figures are supplied, so “what the extra money buys” cannot be calculated. On specifications alone, the RWD version is the clearest economy-oriented purchase, the 1,640 kg AWD version is the strongest numerical compromise between drive type and weight, and the 1,760 kg AWD version is distinguished mainly by its lower and broader stated torque-speed range.