Great Wall Sing RUV: Which Version to Buy and Why
The Great Wall Sing RUV was produced from 2005 to 2010 as an SUV 5-doors in a single generation. Choosing between its two 2.2 MT versions comes down mainly to drive system and power output. The AWD version produces 102 hp, while the RWD version produces 105 hp. Both use a 2,237 cc Gasoline engine, a 5-speed Manual gearbox, and deliver 190 Nm.
The Great Wall Sing RUV was produced from 2005 to 2010 as an SUV 5-doors in a single generation. Choosing between its two 2.2 MT versions comes down mainly to drive system and power output. The AWD version produces 102 hp, while the RWD version produces 105 hp. Both use a 2,237 cc Gasoline engine, a 5-speed Manual gearbox, and deliver 190 Nm. Buyers who need AWD should choose the 102 hp 2.2 MT; those who prefer the highest power-to-weight ratio in the catalogue data should choose the 105 hp RWD 2.2 MT.
Great Wall Sing RUV generations and versions
The Great Wall Sing RUV has one generation, built from 2005 to 2010. This generation uses an SUV 5-doors body and contains two versions, both named 2.2 MT. Because the version names are identical, they must be distinguished by output and drive: 2.2 MT (102 hp, AWD) and 2.2 MT (105 hp, RWD).
There is no later generation in the supplied data, so there is no generational change to compare. The meaningful comparison is entirely within the first generation: the AWD version combines 102 hp with AWD, whereas the RWD version combines 105 hp with RWD.
Great Wall Sing RUV engine and specs comparison
Both 2.2 MT versions have a front, longitudinal 2,237 cc Gasoline engine with 4 Inline cylinders and 2 valves per cylinder. Neither engine is boosted, and both use Distributed injection (multi-point). Each version develops 190 Nm at 3,200 rpm and sends power through a 5-speed Manual gearbox.
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.2 MT (102 hp) | 102 hp / 75 kW at 4,600 rpm | 190 Nm at 3,200 rpm | 2,237 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| 2.2 MT (105 hp) | 105 hp / 77 kW at 4,600 rpm | 190 Nm at 3,200 rpm | 2,237 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
The RWD 2.2 MT has 3 hp and 2 kW more than the AWD 2.2 MT, an increase of about 2.9% in horsepower. Torque does not change: both versions produce 190 Nm at the same 3,200 rpm.
Power per litre is approximately 45.6 hp/L for the 102 hp AWD version and 46.9 hp/L for the 105 hp RWD version. The difference is about 1.3 hp/L in favor of the RWD model. Since the engine displacement is identical, this comparison reflects the stated output difference rather than a larger engine.
Great Wall Sing RUV performance, mpg, and economy
Acceleration from 0–100 km/h is not measured for both the 102 hp AWD 2.2 MT and the 105 hp RWD 2.2 MT. Top speed is also not measured for either version.
City fuel consumption is not measured, highway fuel consumption is not measured, and combined fuel consumption is not measured for both versions. Consequently, the catalogue data cannot support an mpg comparison or identify which version uses less fuel.
CO₂ emissions are not measured for either 2.2 MT, and the emissions class is not measured for both. Each version has a 64 L fuel tank and uses 92 fuel.
The equal torque, engine displacement, transmission, kerb weight, and tank capacity do not establish equal real-world economy. With no measured consumption figures, any claim that AWD or RWD is more economical would go beyond the supplied data.
Great Wall Sing RUV dimensions, weight, and ground clearance
Both versions have a kerb weight of 1,670 kg and a gross weight of 2,340 kg. Their gross-to-kerb difference is 670 kg. Each also has 205 mm of ground clearance and a 64 L tank, so these specifications do not separate the two choices.
Wheel sizes are not measured for the 102 hp AWD 2.2 MT and not measured for the 105 hp RWD 2.2 MT.
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Gross-to-kerb difference | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.2 MT (102 hp, AWD) | 1,670 kg | 2,340 kg | 670 kg | 205 mm | 64 L | not measured |
| 2.2 MT (105 hp, RWD) | 1,670 kg | 2,340 kg | 670 kg | 205 mm | 64 L | not measured |
Weight per horsepower is about 16.4 kg/hp for the 102 hp AWD version and 15.9 kg/hp for the 105 hp RWD version. The RWD model therefore carries roughly 0.5 kg less kerb weight per horsepower. Gross weight per horsepower is about 22.9 kg/hp for the AWD version and 22.3 kg/hp for the RWD version.
Both versions use Independent, torsion front suspension and Dependent, leaf spring rear suspension. Both have Disc front brakes and Drum rear brakes. These chassis specifications are identical in the supplied data.
Great Wall Sing RUV reliability and problems
Reliability ratings, failure records, repair frequency, and model-specific problems are not measured in the supplied data. It is therefore not possible to rank the 102 hp AWD 2.2 MT against the 105 hp RWD 2.2 MT for reliability.
The data confirms that both versions share the same engine displacement, cylinder arrangement, injection system, gearbox type, suspension descriptions, brake descriptions, weights, ground clearance, and tank capacity. However, shared specifications alone do not prove that their reliability or maintenance requirements are identical.
Which Great Wall Sing RUV version should you buy?
Choose the 2.2 MT (102 hp, AWD) when AWD is the deciding requirement. Its output is 102 hp at 4,600 rpm and 190 Nm at 3,200 rpm. It has the same 2,237 cc displacement, 5-speed Manual gearbox, 1,670 kg kerb weight, 205 mm ground clearance, and 64 L tank as the RWD alternative. The numerical trade-off is 3 hp less and approximately 0.5 kg/hp more kerb weight per horsepower.
Choose the 2.2 MT (105 hp, RWD) when maximum stated output and the better calculated power-to-weight ratio matter more than AWD. It produces 105 hp at 4,600 rpm and the same 190 Nm at 3,200 rpm. At approximately 46.9 hp/L and 15.9 kg/hp, it leads the AWD version’s approximately 45.6 hp/L and 16.4 kg/hp.
The available data contains no prices, so it cannot show how much extra money either configuration costs or whether one offers better financial value. It also contains no measured acceleration, top-speed, fuel-consumption, reliability, or wheel-size figures. On the evidence available, the purchase decision is therefore clear but narrow: buy the 102 hp 2.2 MT for AWD, or buy the 105 hp 2.2 MT for 3 hp more and the stronger calculated power-to-weight result.