Isuzu Axiom: which version to buy (1 generation, two 3.5 AT trims)
The Isuzu Axiom was sold in 1 generation from 2001-11-01 to 2004-07-31 as an SUV 5-doors. The catalogue lists 2 versions, both named 3.5 AT. They share the same 3494 cm³ Gasoline V-shaped 6-cylinder engine, the same 253 hp / 186 kW at 5600 rpm, the same 333 Nm at 3000 rpm, the same 4-speed Automatic, and the same 180 km/h top speed.
The Isuzu Axiom was sold in 1 generation from 2001-11-01 to 2004-07-31 as an SUV 5-doors. The catalogue lists 2 versions, both named 3.5 AT. They share the same 3494 cm³ Gasoline V-shaped 6-cylinder engine, the same 253 hp / 186 kW at 5600 rpm, the same 333 Nm at 3000 rpm, the same 4-speed Automatic, and the same 180 km/h top speed. The buying choice is not “which engine.” It is RWD versus AWD, plus a large gap in the measured 0–100 km/h times (18 s versus 8.1 s) and a 110 kg kerb-weight penalty on the all-wheel-drive car.
Generations
1 generation (2001-11-01–2004-07-31) is the whole Axiom story in this dataset: one body (SUV 5-doors), 2 versions, no later generation to wait for and no restyling listed as a separate generation. Both 3.5 AT cars run the same calendar. If you are choosing “which Axiom,” you are choosing inside this window, not between eras.
Engines and specs
Both versions use a 3494 cm³ Gasoline engine, 6 cylinders, V-shaped, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, Front, longitudinal, Direct injection (direct), compression 10.3, bore and stroke 93.4 × 85, fuel 95. Power per litre is the same on both: 253 / 3.494 ≈ 72.4 hp per litre. Gearbox is Automatic with 4 gears on both.
| Version | hp | Nm | cm³ | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 AT (253 hp, RWD) | 253 | 333 | 3494 | Gasoline | 6 | V-shaped | No | Automatic | RWD |
| 3.5 AT (253 hp, AWD) | 253 | 333 | 3494 | Gasoline | 6 | V-shaped | No | Automatic | AWD |
The name 3.5 AT is identical, so the split that matters on a catalogue page is RWD versus AWD (and the 0–100 figures below). Same horsepower, same torque peak, same displacement: the extra hardware is driveline, not a larger engine.
Performance and economy (mpg / 0–100)
3.5 AT RWD: 0–100 km/h 18 s; top speed 180 km/h; city 14; highway 14.7; mixed 11.8. 3.5 AT AWD: 0–100 km/h 8.1 s; top speed 180 km/h; city not measured; highway not measured; mixed not measured.
Arithmetic on those sprint times: the AWD 3.5 AT is 18 − 8.1 = 9.9 s quicker to 100 km/h in the measured figures, with no extra power and 110 kg more kerb weight. Top speed does not change: both 180 km/h. Fuel use is only measured on RWD. You cannot treat the AWD as “thirstier by X” from this file — consumption there is not measured, not “the same as RWD.”
On the RWD mixed figure 11.8 and tank 74 L, a tank of mixed running is 74 / 11.8 × 100 ≈ 627 km of range from the given numbers. That estimate does not apply to AWD because mixed consumption is not measured.
City 14 versus highway 14.7 on RWD is unusual in direction (highway higher than city in this dataset). Use the three figures as listed; do not invent a “typical mpg.” CO₂ is not measured on both. Eco class is not measured on both.
Dimensions and weight
Wheel sizes are not measured on either 3.5 AT. Ground clearance is 200 mm on both. Tank is 74 L on both. Suspension is Independent, spring front and Independent, spring rear on both.
3.5 AT RWD: kerb 1855 kg, gross 2367 kg. Payload from those two: 2367 − 1855 = 512 kg. Weight per horsepower: 1855 / 253 ≈ 7.33 kg/hp. Front brakes Disc; rear brakes not measured.
3.5 AT AWD: kerb 1965 kg, gross 2426 kg. Payload: 2426 − 1965 = 461 kg. Weight per horsepower: 1965 / 253 ≈ 7.77 kg/hp. Front brakes Disc; rear brakes Disc.
What the AWD car “buys” in mass: +110 kg kerb, +59 kg gross (2426 − 2367), −51 kg payload (512 − 461). Clearance does not rise with AWD: still 200 mm. You are not paying that mass for more ride height in this table.
Which version to choose
There is 1 generation and 2 versions. There is no later Axiom generation in the data that added power, a different gearbox, or a different body. The comparison is only 3.5 AT RWD versus 3.5 AT AWD.
Choose 3.5 AT RWD if you want the lighter car and the only measured fuel figures. You get 110 kg less kerb weight, 7.33 versus 7.77 kg/hp, 512 kg versus 461 kg payload, and city / highway / mixed numbers you can actually quote (14 / 14.7 / 11.8). The trade in the data is the slow 0–100: 18 s, 9.9 s behind the other 3.5 AT. Rear brakes on this version are not measured, so you cannot claim a rear-disc spec for it from this file.
Choose 3.5 AT AWD if the driveline and the measured sprint matter more than mass and measured mpg. Drive is AWD. 0–100 is 8.1 s at the same 253 hp and 333 Nm. Rear brakes are Disc (measured here). You accept +110 kg, −51 kg payload, and fuel consumption not measured. Top speed stays 180 km/h, so AWD is not a higher-speed tune in this catalogue.
What extra mass does not buy: more litres, more hp, more Nm, more gears, a different fuel type, or more ground clearance. Engine, Automatic 4, 180 km/h, 74 L tank, 200 mm clearance, 10.3 compression, and 93.4 × 85 bore/stroke are shared.
Reliability / problems: this dataset has no failure rates, no service intervals, and no common-fault list. Do not treat “RWD is simpler” or “AWD is tougher” as a measured claim here. The only hard split is RWD versus AWD, 1855 versus 1965 kg, 18 versus 8.1 s, fuel measured versus not measured, and rear brakes not measured versus Disc.
Short rule from the numbers: same 3.5 AT name, same 253 hp. If you need the quoted mixed 11.8 and the lighter 1855 kg, take RWD. If you need AWD and the 8.1 s 0–100, take AWD and treat mpg as not measured.