Hyundai Santamo

Hyundai Santamo: which version to buy (1995–2002)

If you are choosing a Hyundai Santamo, you are choosing among six Compact Van versions of one generation (1995–2002). There is no later generation to “wait for,” and no restyling listed as a separate generation. All six versions are named 2.0 MT or 2.0 AT. The split that actually matters is 115 hp versus 139 hp, then FWD versus AWD, then Manual 5 versus Automatic 4.

If you are choosing a Hyundai Santamo, you are choosing among six Compact Van versions of one generation (1995–2002). There is no later generation to “wait for,” and no restyling listed as a separate generation. All six versions are named 2.0 MT or 2.0 AT. The split that actually matters is 115 hp versus 139 hp, then FWD versus AWD, then Manual 5 versus Automatic 4.

Two versions share the name 2.0 MT (115 hp and 139 hp). Two share 2.0 AT (115 hp and 139 hp). Two of the 139 hp cars are FWD and two are AWD. The 115 hp pair is FWD only. Use power, drive, and gearbox together — the name on the badge is not unique.

Specs: the six versions side by side

Engine position is Front, transverse on all four 139 hp versions. On both 115 hp versions it is not measured. Injection is Distributed injection (multi-point) on all six. Compression ratio 10.3 and bore × stroke 82 × 93.5 are measured only on the 139 hp / 1975 cc family. On the 115 hp / 1997 cc family both figures are not measured.

Engine: 139 hp (1975 cc) versus 115 hp (1997 cc)

The 139 hp engine is the smaller displacement: 1975 cc versus 1997 cc on the 115 hp pair — 22 cc less, not more. Specific output is 139 / 1.975 ≈ 70.4 hp per litre versus 115 / 1.997 ≈ 57.6 hp per litre. That is about 12.8 hp per litre more, or 22% more power per litre, on the 139 hp family.

Peak power is 24 hp and 17 kW higher on the 139 hp versions (139 vs 115, 102 vs 85). Peak arrives 1000 rpm later (6000 vs 5000). Torque is almost a tie: 182 Nm versus 181 Nm — 1 Nm difference. The 115 hp engine reaches its 181 Nm at 4500 rpm; the 139 hp engine reaches 182 Nm at 4900 rpm. If you care about peak torque rpm more than peak horsepower, the 115 hp engine is the earlier-torque unit. If you care about power, the 139 hp engine is the only step up in this catalogue.

Boost is No on every version. There is no turbo or supercharged Santamo in this data set. Fuel is Gasoline 95 on all six. Cylinders are 4, layout Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, on all six.

Which engine to buy: buy the 139 hp 2.0 MT or 2.0 AT if you want the measured performance figures below. Buy the 115 hp 2.0 MT or 2.0 AT only if you accept that 0–100, top speed, consumption, and kerb weight are not measured for those two versions. The 115 hp pair is not a documented “economy” alternative here — consumption is not measured, so you cannot claim it uses less fuel.

Performance: what gearbox and drive actually change (139 hp only)

0–100 km/h and top speed exist only for the four 139 hp versions. For both 115 hp versions they are not measured.

Manual 5 versus Automatic 4 (same drive): FWD 2.0 MT 139 hp is 2.0 s quicker to 100 km/h than FWD 2.0 AT 139 hp (12.8 vs 14.8). AWD 2.0 MT 139 hp is 1.9 s quicker than AWD 2.0 AT 139 hp (12.1 vs 14.0). Top speed is 5 km/h higher with the Manual 5 (175 vs 170) on both FWD and AWD.

AWD versus FWD (same gearbox): AWD 2.0 MT 139 hp is 0.7 s quicker than FWD 2.0 MT 139 hp (12.1 vs 12.8) despite 35 kg more kerb weight (1460 vs 1425). AWD 2.0 AT 139 hp is 0.8 s quicker than FWD 2.0 AT 139 hp (14.0 vs 14.8) despite 110 kg more kerb weight (1535 vs 1425). AWD does not cut top speed: 175 on both manuals, 170 on both automatics.

Fastest measured Santamo: 2.0 MT 139 hp AWD at 12.1 s. Slowest measured: 2.0 AT 139 hp FWD at 14.8 s — 2.7 s slower. The Automatic 4 costs more time than AWD returns.

Which performance version to buy: if 0–100 is the criterion, 2.0 MT 139 hp AWD. If you want a manual without AWD, 2.0 MT 139 hp FWD is 0.7 s slower but 35 kg lighter. If you want an automatic, 2.0 AT 139 hp AWD (14.0 s) beats 2.0 AT 139 hp FWD (14.8 s). Do not use the 115 hp pair to rank acceleration — those times are not measured.

mpg / fuel consumption: the real cost of Automatic 4 and AWD

Consumption is measured only on the four 139 hp versions. On both 115 hp versions city, highway, and combined are not measured. Tank is 60 L on all six.

AWD versus FWD on Manual 5: city +0.1 (13.4 vs 13.3), highway 0.0 (7.5 vs 7.5), combined +0.8 (10.5 vs 9.7). Combined range drops about 48 km on the same 60 L tank. Highway mpg is identical; the AWD penalty is almost entirely in the combined (and slightly city) figure.

Automatic 4 versus Manual 5 on FWD: city +2.1 (15.4 vs 13.3), highway +2.0 (9.5 vs 7.5), combined +1.7 (11.4 vs 9.7). Combined range drops about 93 km.

Automatic 4 versus Manual 5 on AWD: city +2.8 (16.2 vs 13.4), highway +2.3 (9.8 vs 7.5), combined +1.6 (12.1 vs 10.5). Combined range drops about 75 km.

Heaviest drinker versus lightest: AWD 2.0 AT 139 hp combined 12.1 versus FWD 2.0 MT 139 hp combined 9.7 — +2.4, about 25% more combined fuel, and about 123 km less range on 60 L. City gap is 16.2 vs 13.3 (+2.9). Highway gap is 9.8 vs 7.5 (+2.3).

Which mpg version to buy: 2.0 MT 139 hp FWD is the only version with combined 9.7, city 13.3, highway 7.5. Adding AWD to that manual costs 0.8 combined and almost nothing on the highway. Adding Automatic 4 costs more than adding AWD. Stacking Automatic 4 and AWD is the expensive combination. The 115 hp versions cannot be chosen “for mpg” from this data: consumption is not measured.

Dimensions and weight: what AWD adds in kilograms

Ground clearance is 160 on all six versions. Wheel sizes are not measured on all six. Gross weight is 2070 on the two AWD 139 hp versions and not measured on the four FWD versions.

Kerb weight arithmetic (139 hp): FWD Manual and FWD Automatic share 1425. AWD Manual is 1460 (+35 versus FWD). AWD Automatic is 1535 (+110 versus FWD, +75 versus AWD Manual). The Automatic 4 does not add kerb weight on FWD; it does on AWD.

kg per hp (139 hp, kerb / 139): FWD 2.0 MT and FWD 2.0 AT ≈ 10.3 kg/hp. AWD 2.0 MT ≈ 10.5 kg/hp. AWD 2.0 AT ≈ 11.0 kg/hp. Payload on the AWD cars, where gross 2070 is measured: AWD Manual 2070 − 1460 = 610; AWD Automatic 2070 − 1535 = 535. That is 75 kg less payload on the heavier automatic AWD.

Chassis note that splits the engines: front suspension is Independent, spring on all six. Rear suspension is Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem on the four 139 hp versions and Semi-independent, torsion on the two 115 hp versions. Brakes are Ventilated disc front and Drum rear on all six. Clearance does not change with AWD: 160 across the board.

Which weight version to buy: lightest measured kerb is 1425 on both FWD 139 hp cars. If you need a published gross 2070, you must take AWD. If payload matters and you still want AWD, 2.0 MT 139 hp AWD leaves 610 versus 535 on 2.0 AT 139 hp AWD. Do not assume the 115 hp FWD cars are lighter — kerb is not measured.

Which version to choose

There is only 1 generation (1995–2002), Compact Van, 6 versions. Generation-to-generation change is not available: nothing replaced this generation in the data.

Buy 2.0 MT 139 hp FWD if you want the lowest measured combined consumption (9.7), city 13.3, highway 7.5, kerb 1425, Manual 5, and 0–100 12.8 s / 175 km/h. This is the mpg and weight default.

Buy 2.0 MT 139 hp AWD if you want the quickest measured 0–100 (12.1 s), the same 175 km/h, Manual 5, and a published gross 2070. You pay 35 kg, +0.8 combined, and +0.1 city; highway stays 7.5. Payload 610.

Buy 2.0 AT 139 hp FWD if you need Automatic 4 and FWD. You keep kerb 1425 but give up 2.0 s to 100 versus the FWD manual (14.8 vs 12.8), 5 km/h top speed (170 vs 175), and +1.7 combined (11.4 vs 9.7). Gross is not measured.

Buy 2.0 AT 139 hp AWD if you need Automatic 4 and AWD together. 0–100 14.0 s is 0.8 s better than the FWD automatic, top speed still 170, but this is the heaviest (1535), thirstiest (city 16.2, highway 9.8, combined 12.1), and shortest combined range (~496 km on 60 L). Payload 535.

Buy 2.0 MT 115 hp FWD or 2.0 AT 115 hp FWD only if you specifically want the 1997 cc / 115 hp / 181 Nm @ 4500 engine and Semi-independent, torsion rear suspension. Power is 24 hp lower, specific output ~57.6 versus ~70.4 hp/L, drive is FWD only, and 0–100, top speed, consumption, kerb, gross, compression, bore × stroke, and engine position are not measured. Those two versions are the incomplete spec sheets, not the documented bargain.

What extra equipment “buys” in these numbers (no prices in the data): versus FWD 2.0 MT 139 hp, AWD on the same Manual 5 buys 0.7 s quicker 0–100 and gross 2070, at +35 kg and +0.8 combined. Automatic 4 on FWD buys no extra kerb weight and costs 2.0 s, 5 km/h, and +1.7 combined. Automatic 4 plus AWD buys 0–100 14.0 s (still slower than any 139 hp manual) at +110 kg and +2.4 combined. The 115 hp name twins do not buy a documented economy win.

Problems / reliability: this catalogue has no failure-rate, recall, or durability figures. What can be stated from the hardware list is that every version uses Gasoline 95, No boost, Ventilated disc / Drum, clearance 160, and tank 60. Differences that could matter in use are gearbox (Manual 5 vs Automatic 4), drive (FWD vs AWD on 139 hp only), rear suspension type (the 139 hp label versus Semi-independent, torsion on 115 hp), and the 24 hp engine split. Do not infer reliability from those labels; they are configuration facts, not test results.

Short list: measured performance and mpg → 2.0 MT 139 hp FWD (economy) or 2.0 MT 139 hp AWD (quickest). Automatic → 2.0 AT 139 hp FWD unless you need AWD, then 2.0 AT 139 hp AWD. 2.0 MT 115 hp and 2.0 AT 115 hp: same names, less power, more gaps marked not measured.