Honda Rafaga: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Honda Rafaga has four versions within one generation: 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, 2.5 AT, and 2.5 MT. All are FWD Sedans with naturally aspirated Inline 5-cylinder Gasoline engines, but the best choice depends on whether you value lower kerb weight, Automatic convenience, or the stronger 2.5-litre engine.
The Honda Rafaga has four versions within one generation: 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, 2.5 AT, and 2.5 MT. All are FWD Sedans with naturally aspirated Inline 5-cylinder Gasoline engines, but the best choice depends on whether you value lower kerb weight, Automatic convenience, or the stronger 2.5-litre engine. The 2.0 MT is the lightest at 1,300 kg, while the 2.5 MT combines 180 hp with 1,320 kg and is the only version with a measured top speed: 215 km/h. No price data is available, so “value” here can only be judged from the specifications rather than purchase cost.
Honda Rafaga generations and versions
The Honda Rafaga has 1 generation, produced from October 1993 through August 1997. This generation uses a Sedan body and includes 4 versions: 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, 2.5 AT, and 2.5 MT. There are no additional generations or restylings listed in the supplied data, so the meaningful buying comparison is between engine size and transmission rather than between model generations.
Honda Rafaga engine and specs comparison
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 AT | 160 hp (118 kW) at 6,700 rpm | 186 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,996 cc | 92 | 5 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.0 MT | 160 hp (118 kW) at 6,700 rpm | 186 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,996 cc | 92 | 5 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.5 AT | 180 hp (132 kW) at 6,500 rpm | 226 Nm at 3,800 rpm | 2,451 cc | 92 | 5 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.5 MT | 180 hp (132 kW) at 6,500 rpm | 226 Nm at 3,800 rpm | 2,451 cc | 95 | 5 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
Moving from either 2.0 version to either 2.5 version adds 455 cc, 20 hp, and 40 Nm. That equals a 12.5% increase in power and about a 21.5% increase in torque. The 2.5 engine also reaches peak power 200 rpm earlier and peak torque 200 rpm earlier than the 2.0 engine.
Calculated from the supplied displacement and power figures, the 2.0 engine produces approximately 80.2 hp per litre, while the 2.5 engine produces approximately 73.4 hp per litre. The 2.0 is therefore stronger per litre, but the 2.5 provides the greater total output.
All four engines have 4 valves per cylinder, a 9.3 compression ratio, and Distributed injection (multi-point). Bore and stroke are 82 × 75.6 mm for the 2.0 versions and 85 × 86.4 mm for the 2.5 versions. The engine position is Front, transverse for 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, and 2.5 AT; it is not measured for 2.5 MT.
Honda Rafaga performance and mpg
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 AT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 MT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.5 AT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.5 MT | not measured | 215 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
The available performance data does not support a complete speed comparison. Acceleration from 0–100 km/h is not measured for every version, and top speed is not measured for 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, and 2.5 AT. Only 2.5 MT has a recorded maximum of 215 km/h.
City, highway, and combined fuel consumption are not measured for all four versions. Consequently, mpg cannot be calculated, and the data does not show whether the Manual or Automatic versions use less fuel. Emissions are also not measured throughout the range. The environmental class is Euro 2 for 2.5 MT and not measured for the other three versions.
Honda Rafaga dimensions, weight, and clearance
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 AT | 1,320 kg | not measured | 155 mm | 65 litres | not measured |
| 2.0 MT | 1,300 kg | not measured | 155 mm | 65 litres | not measured |
| 2.5 AT | 1,340 kg | not measured | 155 mm | 65 litres | not measured |
| 2.5 MT | 1,320 kg | not measured | 155 mm | 65 litres | not measured |
The Manual gearbox corresponds to a 20 kg lower kerb weight with either engine: 2.0 MT weighs 1,300 kg compared with 1,320 kg for 2.0 AT, while 2.5 MT weighs 1,320 kg compared with 1,340 kg for 2.5 AT. The full range spans only 40 kg, from the lightest 2.0 MT to the heaviest 2.5 AT.
The calculated weight-to-power figures further separate the versions. 2.0 AT carries 8.25 kg per hp, 2.0 MT carries about 8.13 kg per hp, 2.5 AT carries about 7.44 kg per hp, and 2.5 MT carries about 7.33 kg per hp. On this measure, 2.5 MT has the most favourable specification, while 2.0 AT has the highest weight per horsepower.
Every version has 155 mm of ground clearance and a 65-litre fuel tank. Gross weight and wheel sizes are not measured for every version. Front and rear suspension are Independent, spring throughout the range. Every version also has Ventilated disc front brakes and Disc rear brakes.
Which Honda Rafaga version should you choose?
Choose 2.0 MT if low kerb weight matters most. At 1,300 kg, it is 20 kg lighter than 2.0 AT, 40 kg lighter than 2.5 AT, and 20 kg lighter than 2.5 MT. Its 5-speed Manual accompanies the same 160 hp and 186 Nm delivered by 2.0 AT, so it is the more favourable 2.0 version by weight-to-power ratio.
Choose 2.0 AT if you want the 1,996 cc engine with a 4-speed Automatic. It matches 2.0 MT for power, torque, fuel grade, clearance, tank capacity, suspension, and brakes, but weighs 20 kg more. The supplied data contains no acceleration or consumption figures showing whether that extra weight changes real-world performance or economy.
Choose 2.5 AT if you want the stronger engine with an Automatic. Compared with 2.0 AT, it provides 20 hp and 40 Nm more while adding just 20 kg. Its calculated weight-to-power figure improves from 8.25 kg per hp to about 7.44 kg per hp. Both Automatic versions use fuel labelled 92 in the data.
Choose 2.5 MT if output and weight-to-power ratio are the priorities. It combines 180 hp and 226 Nm with a kerb weight of 1,320 kg, matching the weight of 2.0 AT despite offering 20 hp and 40 Nm more. It is also 20 kg lighter than 2.5 AT and has the range’s best calculated figure at about 7.33 kg per hp. Its specified fuel is 95 rather than the 92 listed for the other versions, and it is the only version with a measured top speed and environmental class: 215 km/h and Euro 2.
On the available numbers, 2.5 MT is the strongest specification-led choice, 2.5 AT is the Automatic alternative with the same engine output, and 2.0 MT is the lightest option. Reliability, problems, maintenance costs, prices, and fuel consumption are not measured, so they cannot support a factual recommendation from this dataset.