Honda Vigor: which version to buy and why
The Honda Vigor in this catalogue is one generation of Sedan, sold from 1989-09-01 to 1995-01-31, with 6 versions. There is no second generation here to “step up to,” so the buying choice is entirely among those six: two 2.0 AT (160 hp and 165 hp), two 2.0 MT (160 hp and 165 hp), plus 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT.
The Honda Vigor in this catalogue is one generation of Sedan, sold from 1989-09-01 to 1995-01-31, with 6 versions. There is no second generation here to “step up to,” so the buying choice is entirely among those six: two 2.0 AT (160 hp and 165 hp), two 2.0 MT (160 hp and 165 hp), plus 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT. Acceleration 0–100, fuel consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight and wheel sizes are not measured on every version; top speed is measured only on two manuals. The comparison below uses only the numbers that exist.
Honda Vigor specs by version: what actually changes
| Version | hp (kW @ rpm) | Nm @ rpm | cc | Fuel | Cylinders / layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 AT (160 hp) | 160 (118 @ 6700) | 186 @ 4000 | 1996 | 92 | 5 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (160 hp) | 160 (118 @ 6700) | 186 @ 4000 | 1996 | 92 | 5 Inline | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (165 hp) | 165 (121 @ 6700) | 186 @ 4000 | 1996 | 95 | 5 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (165 hp) | 165 (121 @ 6700) | 186 @ 4000 | 1996 | 95 | 5 Inline | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
| 2.5 AT | 190 (140 @ 6500) | 237 @ 3800 | 2451 | 95 | 5 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 2.5 MT | 190 (140 @ 6500) | 237 @ 3800 | 2451 | 95 | 5 Inline | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
Every version is Gasoline, 5 Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, No boost, Distributed injection (multi-point), FWD. Engine position is Front, transverse only on the 160 hp pair; on the 165 hp and 2.5 versions it is not measured.
Engine: 2.0 vs 2.5, and 160 hp vs 165 hp
The 2.0 family shares 1996 cc, 82 × 75.6 bore × stroke, compression 9.7, and 186 Nm at 4000 rpm. The split is power and fuel grade, not torque:
- 2.0 AT (160 hp) and 2.0 MT (160 hp) make 160 hp / 118 kW at 6700 rpm on 92.
- 2.0 AT (165 hp) and 2.0 MT (165 hp) make 165 hp / 121 kW at the same 6700 rpm on 95.
That is +5 hp / +3 kW for the 95-fuel 2.0, with 0 Nm extra. Specific output: 160 / 1.996 ≈ 80.2 hp per litre versus 165 / 1.996 ≈ 82.7 hp per litre. You are not buying a larger engine; you are buying 5 more horsepower and a higher fuel grade on the same 1996 cc, same 186 Nm, same 9.7 compression.
The 2.5 family is a different engine: 2451 cc (+455 cc vs 1996), 85 × 86.4, compression 9 (0.7 lower than the 2.0), 190 hp / 140 kW at 6500 rpm (200 rpm earlier than the 2.0 peak), 237 Nm at 3800 rpm. Versus the 160 hp 2.0 that is +30 hp and +51 Nm; versus the 165 hp 2.0 it is +25 hp and still +51 Nm. Peak torque arrives 200 rpm earlier than the 2.0’s 4000 rpm. Specific output of the 2.5 is 190 / 2.451 ≈ 77.5 hp per litre — lower than both 2.0 tunes. The extra displacement buys torque and absolute power, not a higher specific output.
Fuel: only the 160 hp pair is specified for 92. The 165 hp 2.0 and both 2.5 versions are 95. If the question is “can I stay on 92,” the catalogue only lists that grade on 2.0 AT (160 hp) and 2.0 MT (160 hp).
Automatic vs Manual: same engine, different box
Gearboxes do not mix across engines. Automatic is always 4 speeds; Manual is always 5. Pairing:
- Same 160 hp 2.0: 2.0 AT (160 hp) vs 2.0 MT (160 hp)
- Same 165 hp 2.0: 2.0 AT (165 hp) vs 2.0 MT (165 hp)
- Same 190 hp 2.5: 2.5 AT vs 2.5 MT
Drive is FWD on all six. You are not buying AWD by moving up the table.
Kerb weight, where measured, is the main Automatic vs Manual number:
- 2.0 MT (160 hp) 1280 kg vs 2.0 AT (160 hp) 1330 kg: Automatic is +50 kg.
- 2.0 MT (165 hp) 1360 kg; 2.0 AT (165 hp) kerb not measured.
- 2.5 MT 1380 kg; 2.5 AT kerb not measured.
Mass per horsepower on the measured cars:
- 2.0 MT (160 hp): 1280 / 160 = 8.00 kg/hp (lightest per hp among measured 2.0s, and the lightest car overall)
- 2.0 AT (160 hp): 1330 / 160 = 8.31 kg/hp
- 2.0 MT (165 hp): 1360 / 165 ≈ 8.24 kg/hp — 5 more hp than the 160 hp manual, but +80 kg, so kg/hp is worse than the 1280 kg 160 hp manual
- 2.5 MT: 1380 / 190 ≈ 7.26 kg/hp — best measured power-to-weight
If the goal is the lowest measured mass, 2.0 MT (160 hp) at 1280 kg is the only car under 1300 kg. The 165 hp manual is 80 kg heavier than that 160 hp manual despite only 5 hp more. The 2.5 manual is 100 kg heavier than the lightest 2.0 manual, for +30 hp and +51 Nm.
Performance and economy (mpg, 0–100, top speed)
0–100 is not measured on all six versions. Combined, city and highway consumption, CO2 and eco class are not measured on all six. There is no mpg ranking to compute.
Top speed is measured on two cars only:
- 2.0 MT (165 hp): 200
- 2.5 MT: 210 (+10 vs the 165 hp 2.0 manual)
For 2.0 AT (160 hp), 2.0 MT (160 hp), 2.0 AT (165 hp) and 2.5 AT, top speed is not measured. You cannot rank Automatics on speed from this data.
Dimensions, weight, ground clearance, tank
Tank is 65 on every version — range is not a differentiator.
Ground clearance splits the 2.0 family:
- 155 on 2.0 AT (160 hp) and 2.0 MT (160 hp)
- 165 on 2.0 AT (165 hp), 2.0 MT (165 hp), 2.5 AT, 2.5 MT (+10 vs the 160 hp pair)
The 165 hp 2.0 and both 2.5 versions sit 10 mm higher in the catalogue. Wheel sizes are not measured on all six. Gross weight is not measured on all six. Kerb, restated: 1280 (2.0 MT 160 hp), 1330 (2.0 AT 160 hp), 1360 (2.0 MT 165 hp), 1380 (2.5 MT); 2.0 AT (165 hp) and 2.5 AT kerb not measured.
Chassis items that do not change: Independent, spring front and rear; Ventilated disc front; Disc rear. Buying a 2.5 does not change the listed suspension or brake type.
Honda Vigor generations: what changed
This catalogue lists 1 generation: 3 generation, Sedan, 1989-09-01 to 1995-01-31, 6 versions. There is no later generation here with more power, a different body, or measured economy. Restyling is not listed as a separate generation. The “generation” decision is empty; the version decision is the whole article.
Which version to choose
Lightest 2.0, 92 fuel, five-speed: 2.0 MT (160 hp). 160 hp, 186 Nm, 1996 cc, Manual 5, FWD, kerb 1280 kg, clearance 155, tank 65. Best measured kg/hp among the 2.0s (8.00). Top speed, 0–100 and mpg not measured.
Same 160 hp engine with Automatic: 2.0 AT (160 hp). Same 160 hp, 186 Nm, 92, Automatic 4, +50 kg vs the matching manual (1330 vs 1280), same 155 clearance. Choose this only if the 4-speed Automatic is the requirement; the data does not show a power or torque gain.
2.0 with +5 hp, 95 fuel, +10 mm clearance: 2.0 MT (165 hp) or 2.0 AT (165 hp). Same 186 Nm as the 160 hp cars. The manual has kerb 1360 kg (+80 kg vs 2.0 MT 160 hp) and the only 2.0 top speed on file (200). The Automatic’s kerb is not measured. Engine position not measured. You pay 5 hp and a fuel-grade step for no extra newton-metres and, on the manual, more mass.
Most measured power and torque: 2.5 MT — 190 hp, 237 Nm, 2451 cc, Manual 5, kerb 1380 kg (7.26 kg/hp), clearance 165, top speed 210. Versus 2.0 MT (160 hp): +30 hp, +51 Nm, +100 kg, +10 mm clearance, fuel 95 not 92. Versus 2.0 MT (165 hp): +25 hp, +51 Nm, +20 kg, +10 top speed (210 vs 200).
2.5 with Automatic: 2.5 AT — same 190 hp / 237 Nm / 2451 cc / Automatic 4 / FWD / 165 clearance / 65 tank. Kerb, 0–100, top speed and mpg not measured. Use this when the 2.5 engine is required and the box must be Automatic 4; you cannot compare its mass or speed to 2.5 MT from these figures.
Do not pick on mpg, 0–100, wheels or gross weight. Those fields are not measured. Do not pick on drive or boost: all FWD, all No. Do not treat the two 2.0 AT or two 2.0 MT as the same car: 160 hp / 92 / 155 mm versus 165 hp / 95 / 165 mm.
Short map: lowest measured weight → 2.0 MT (160 hp); 92 and Automatic → 2.0 AT (160 hp); 2.0 with 200 top speed → 2.0 MT (165 hp); strongest measured package → 2.5 MT; 190 hp without a measured kerb or top speed → 2.5 AT.