Holden Frontera: Which Version Should You Choose?
The Holden Frontera was offered in a single generation from 1998 to 2003 as an SUV 5-doors, so the buying decision is not about choosing between generations. Instead, it comes down to five versions: 2.0 MT, 2.2 MT, 3.2 AT, 3.2 MT, and 2.8 MT. The 3.2 MT provides the strongest measured performance, reaching 100 km/h in 9.7 seconds and 192 km/h.
The Holden Frontera was offered in a single generation from 1998 to 2003 as an SUV 5-doors, so the buying decision is not about choosing between generations. Instead, it comes down to five versions: 2.0 MT, 2.2 MT, 3.2 AT, 3.2 MT, and 2.8 MT. The 3.2 MT provides the strongest measured performance, reaching 100 km/h in 9.7 seconds and 192 km/h. The 3.2 AT uses the same 205 hp engine but trades some performance for an Automatic gearbox. The 2.8 MT is the only Diesel and the only Turbo version, while the 2.0 MT is the lightest on gross-weight specification and the least powerful Gasoline choice.
Holden Frontera generations compared
There is only one Holden Frontera generation in the supplied catalogue data. It ran from 1998 to 2003, used the SUV 5-doors body, and contained all five versions. Consequently, no numerical comparison between Frontera generations or documented account of what changed between them is possible from these records.
The generation nevertheless offers several distinct mechanical choices. Four versions use Gasoline and one uses Diesel. Four have a Manual gearbox and one has an Automatic. Every version has AWD, a front, longitudinal engine position, 230 mm of ground clearance, and a 75-litre tank.
Holden Frontera engine and specs comparison
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 115 hp at 5200 rpm | 172 Nm at 2800 rpm | 1998 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5-speed | AWD |
| 2.2 MT | 136 hp at 5200 rpm | 202 Nm at 2500 rpm | 2198 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5-speed | AWD |
| 3.2 AT | 205 hp at 5400 rpm | 290 Nm at 3000 rpm | 3165 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | Automatic, 4-speed | AWD |
| 3.2 MT | 205 hp at 5400 rpm | 290 Nm at 3000 rpm | 3165 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | Manual, 5-speed | AWD |
| 2.8 MT | 114 hp at 3600 rpm | 260 Nm at 2000 rpm | 2771 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5-speed | AWD |
Among the Gasoline versions, the 2.2 MT adds 21 hp and 30 Nm over the 2.0 MT while increasing displacement by 200 cc. It also develops maximum torque 300 rpm earlier. Calculated from the supplied figures, the 2.0 MT produces about 57.6 hp per litre, while the 2.2 MT produces about 61.9 hp per litre.
The two 3.2 versions share identical engine figures: 205 hp, 290 Nm, and 3165 cc. Their calculated specific output is about 64.8 hp per litre, the highest of the five. The meaningful choice between 3.2 AT and 3.2 MT is therefore the transmission and the resulting performance and weight, rather than engine output.
The 2.8 MT develops 114 hp but produces 260 Nm at 2000 rpm. That is 88 Nm more than the 2.0 MT and 58 Nm more than the 2.2 MT, despite having less power than either Gasoline Manual. Its calculated output is about 41.1 hp per litre. It is also the only version with Turbo boost.
Performance, top speed, and fuel economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 15.6 s | 158 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.2 MT | 14.0 s | 161 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 3.2 AT | 10.0 s | 188 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 3.2 MT | 9.7 s | 192 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.8 MT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
The 2.2 MT reaches 100 km/h 1.6 seconds sooner than the 2.0 MT and has a top speed that is 3 km/h higher. This is a measurable improvement, although it remains substantially slower than either 3.2 version.
The 3.2 MT is 0.3 seconds quicker from 0 to 100 km/h than the 3.2 AT and reaches a top speed 4 km/h higher. Compared with the 2.2 MT, the 3.2 MT cuts 4.3 seconds from the acceleration time and adds 31 km/h to the measured top speed. The 3.2 AT still cuts 4.0 seconds from the 2.2 MT result and adds 27 km/h.
No city, highway, or combined fuel-consumption figure was measured for any version, so an evidence-based mpg or economy ranking cannot be made. The 2.8 MT also has no measured acceleration or top-speed result. Fuel type, Turbo boost, or engine displacement alone does not establish which version consumes less fuel.
Dimensions, weight, and ground clearance
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 1696 kg | 2400 kg | 230 mm | 75 L | not measured |
| 2.2 MT | 1828 kg | 2400 kg | 230 mm | 75 L | not measured |
| 3.2 AT | 1800 kg | 2450 kg | 230 mm | 75 L | not measured |
| 3.2 MT | 1780 kg | 2450 kg | 230 mm | 75 L | not measured |
| 2.8 MT | 1828 kg | 2400 kg | 230 mm | 75 L | not measured |
The 2.0 MT is the lightest version at 1696 kg. The 3.2 MT weighs 84 kg more but supplies 90 hp more, while the 3.2 AT weighs 104 kg more and also supplies 90 hp more. The 2.2 MT and 2.8 MT share the highest kerb weight, 1828 kg.
Calculated kerb weight per horsepower highlights the performance differences. The 3.2 MT carries about 8.7 kg per hp, followed by the 3.2 AT at about 8.8 kg per hp. The 2.2 MT has about 13.4 kg per hp, the 2.0 MT about 14.7 kg per hp, and the 2.8 MT about 16.0 kg per hp. These ratios do not replace measured acceleration figures, but they show how much vehicle mass each stated horsepower must move.
Ground clearance and tank capacity do not separate the versions: each has 230 mm and 75 litres. Wheel sizes are not measured for any version. Exterior length, width, height, wheelbase, and luggage capacity are also not measured in the supplied data.
Which Holden Frontera version should you buy?
Choose the 3.2 MT when measured performance is the priority. It combines the catalogue’s highest power output of 205 hp with the quickest 0–100 km/h result of 9.7 seconds, the highest top speed of 192 km/h, and the best calculated weight-to-power figure at about 8.7 kg per hp. It also has a Manual, 5-speed gearbox.
Choose the 3.2 AT when an Automatic gearbox matters more than the small measured performance advantage of the 3.2 MT. It retains the same 205 hp and 290 Nm, but uses an Automatic, 4-speed gearbox. The trade-off is 20 kg more kerb weight, an additional 0.3 seconds to 100 km/h, and a top speed 4 km/h lower.
Choose the 2.2 MT for the strongest four-cylinder Gasoline specification. Against the 2.0 MT, it brings 21 additional horsepower, 30 additional newton-metres, and a 1.6-second improvement to 100 km/h. The cost within the vehicle’s specifications is an extra 132 kg of kerb weight. Purchase prices are not present in the data, so whether those gains justify any actual price difference cannot be measured here.
Choose the 2.8 MT if the Diesel, Turbo combination is the deciding requirement. Its 260 Nm arrives at 2000 rpm, giving it 58 Nm more than the 2.2 MT and placing it only 30 Nm below either 3.2 version. However, its 114 hp is the lowest output in the range, and both acceleration and top speed are not measured. Fuel consumption is also not measured, so the data does not support claiming an economy advantage.
Choose the 2.0 MT when the lowest kerb weight is more important than output. At 1696 kg, it is 84 kg lighter than the 3.2 MT and 132 kg lighter than the 2.2 MT. Its 115 hp, 172 Nm, 15.6-second acceleration time, and 158 km/h top speed also make it the least capable of the Gasoline versions by the available performance measurements.
For most buyers choosing strictly from these specifications, the decision narrows to the 3.2 MT for maximum performance, the 3.2 AT for the only Automatic option, the 2.2 MT for a four-cylinder Gasoline compromise, or the 2.8 MT for Diesel and Turbo hardware. Reliability and known-problem data are not measured, so none of the five versions can be ranked for durability from the supplied facts.