Haval F7x: which version to buy
If you are choosing a Haval F7x, the catalogue gives you one generation (from 2019-10-01, still listed with no end date) and two versions that share the same name, 2.0 DSG.
If you are choosing a Haval F7x, the catalogue gives you one generation (from 2019-10-01, still listed with no end date) and two versions that share the same name, 2.0 DSG. Both use the same 1967 cm³ Gasoline turbo engine at 190 hp (140 kW) at 5500 rpm and 340 Nm from 2000 – 3200 rpm, the same 7-speed Robotic gearbox, the same 56-litre tank, the same 190 mm ground clearance, and the same wheel sizes (225/65 R17 and 225/55 R19). The split that actually decides the purchase is drive: FWD versus AWD. The FWD 2.0 DSG is the lighter, quicker-to-100, lower-consumption car; the AWD 2.0 DSG is 68 kg heavier, uses more fuel, and has 0–100 km/h not measured.
Haval F7x specs that decide the purchase
There is no second generation to wait for in this data set: `pokoleniy` is 1, body is SUV Coupe, and both versions start on 2019-10-01 with `stop` null. You are not choosing between an old F7x and a new one. You are choosing how much mass and fuel you will carry for all-wheel drive.
Specific output of the shared engine is 190 hp / 1.967 L ≈ 96.6 hp per litre. That figure is identical on both 2.0 DSG cars. What changes is how much metal that power has to move.
| Version (exact name) | Distinction | hp | Nm | cm³ | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 DSG | FWD | 190 | 340 | 1967 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | Turbo | Robotic, 7 | FWD |
| 2.0 DSG | AWD | 190 | 340 | 1967 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | Turbo | Robotic, 7 | AWD |
Engine placement is Front, transverse and injection is Direct injection (direct) on both. Fuel grade in the data is 95. Eco class is Euro 5 on both. Rear brakes in the data are labelled Disc; front brakes are Ventilated disc. Suspension is Independent, spring at both axles on both versions.
Engine: same 2.0 DSG twice
Because both rows are named 2.0 DSG and both have 190 hp, you cannot separate them by power the way you would two Land Cruiser 3.3 AT rows at 299 and 309 hp. You separate them by drive: FWD and AWD.
What you do not get by stepping up to AWD:
- more horsepower (still 190)
- more torque (still 340 Nm in the same 2000 – 3200 rpm window)
- a different gearbox (still Robotic, 7)
- a larger tank (still 56 L)
- more ground clearance (still 190 mm)
- different tyres (same two sizes)
What you do get is 68 kg extra kerb weight (1756 vs 1688) and 68 kg extra gross weight (2266 vs 2198). Payload is the same arithmetic on both: 2198 − 1688 = 510 kg FWD, 2266 − 1756 = 510 kg AWD. All-wheel drive here does not buy extra legal payload; it buys drive to the rear axle at the cost of mass.
Weight per horsepower:
- FWD 2.0 DSG: 1688 / 190 ≈ 8.88 kg/hp
- AWD 2.0 DSG: 1756 / 190 ≈ 9.24 kg/hp
That is about 0.36 kg extra per horsepower on the AWD car. Power-to-weight therefore favours FWD even though the engine card is a copy.
Performance and mpg: FWD is the measured quicker car
0–100 km/h
- FWD 2.0 DSG: 9 s
- AWD 2.0 DSG: not measured
Do not treat the AWD 0–100 as “about the same as 9.” The catalogue did not publish it. The extra 68 kg and AWD hardware would be expected to slow the same 190 hp, but the number itself is not measured.
Top speed is 195 km/h on both. AWD does not buy a higher limiter in this data.
Fuel consumption (L/100 km) and CO2
| Version | Drive | City | Highway | Mixed | CO2 g/km |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 DSG | FWD | 11.6 | 7.2 | 8.8 | 201 |
| 2.0 DSG | AWD | 12.5 | 7.5 | 9.4 | 214 |
Arithmetic on those figures:
- City: AWD uses 0.9 L/100 km more (12.5 − 11.6)
- Highway: AWD uses 0.3 L/100 km more (7.5 − 7.2)
- Mixed: AWD uses 0.6 L/100 km more (9.4 − 8.8)
- CO2: AWD is 13 g/km higher (214 − 201)
On a 56-litre tank, mixed-range arithmetic (tank ÷ mixed rate × 100):
- FWD 2.0 DSG: 56 / 8.8 × 100 ≈ 636 km
- AWD 2.0 DSG: 56 / 9.4 × 100 ≈ 596 km
That is about 40 km less mixed range on the same tank for AWD. Highway range: 56 / 7.2 × 100 ≈ 778 km FWD versus 56 / 7.5 × 100 ≈ 747 km AWD (about 31 km less). City range: 56 / 11.6 × 100 ≈ 483 km FWD versus 56 / 12.5 × 100 ≈ 448 km AWD (about 35 km less).
If you mostly drive sealed roads, the FWD 2.0 DSG is the version that has a published 9 s to 100, the lower three consumption figures, the lower CO2, and the longer tank range. The AWD 2.0 DSG is the version you take when you need AWD more than you need those numbers.
There is no diesel, no hybrid, and no second engine family in the data. “Which engine” is not a real question on this model; both cars are the 1967 cm³ Gasoline turbo.
Dimensions and weight: the 68 kg gap
Ground clearance is 190 mm on both, so AWD is not a higher-riding F7x in this catalogue. Wheel options are the same two sizes; choosing 225/55 R19 versus 225/65 R17 is a tyre/wheel choice, not a version choice — both versions list both.
| Version | Drive | Kerb kg | Gross kg | Payload kg | Clearance mm | Tank L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 DSG | FWD | 1688 | 2198 | 510 | 190 | 56 |
| 2.0 DSG | AWD | 1756 | 2266 | 510 | 190 | 56 |
68 kg is the whole structural difference the data gives you. It is 68 / 1688 ≈ 4.0% more kerb mass on AWD. Gross mass rises by the same 68 kg, so the extra hardware is counted in both figures and payload stays 510 kg.
Compression ratio is not measured on either version. Bore and stroke are not measured on either version. Do not fill those gaps from other Haval engines.
Which generation changed what
Only 1 generation is listed. There is no restyling row, no generation 2, and no stop date. You cannot buy a “later F7x” with more power, a different gearbox, or different clearance from this data. Year of production does not split the two 2.0 DSG cars: both start 2019-10-01.
That makes the buy decision unusually narrow: FWD versus AWD on an otherwise identical SUV Coupe spec card.
Which version to choose
Take the FWD 2.0 DSG if you want the numbers that are actually better in the table: 1688 kg instead of 1756 kg, 8.88 kg/hp instead of 9.24, mixed 8.8 instead of 9.4, city 11.6 instead of 12.5, highway 7.2 instead of 7.5, CO2 201 instead of 214, and a published 9 s to 100 km/h. Top speed is already 195 km/h; AWD does not raise it. Payload is already 510 kg; AWD does not raise it. Clearance is already 190 mm; AWD does not raise it.
Take the AWD 2.0 DSG if the drivetrain itself is the requirement. You pay 68 kg, 0.6 L/100 km mixed, 13 g/km CO2, and you accept that 0–100 km/h is not measured. You do not pay for extra horsepower, extra gears, extra tank, or extra ride height, because those fields are copies of the FWD 2.0 DSG.
There is no third version to split the difference. There is no higher-output 2.0 DSG and no smaller engine. If a listing shows two Haval F7x cars both labelled 2.0 DSG, match them by drive (FWD or AWD) and by kerb weight (1688 vs 1756), not by the nameplate.
Reliability / problems: this data set does not contain reliability, recall, or fault figures. Those searches cannot be answered from the numbers above; they are not measured here.
Summary in one line: on the Haval F7x 1 generation SUV Coupe, buy FWD 2.0 DSG for the measured 9 s, 8.8 mixed, and 1688 kg; buy AWD 2.0 DSG only for AWD, knowing 0–100 is not measured and every other listed performance and economy figure is worse by the arithmetic above.