JAC S1 (Rein): Which Version Should You Buy?
The JAC S1 (Rein) was offered as an SUV 5-doors with 2.0 MT and 2.4 MT versions. For buyers comparing the available specifications, the main dividing lines are engine output, drive system, weight, and production period. The original model, produced from December 2006 through December 2010, offered 2.0 MT with RWD and 2.4 MT with AWD.
The JAC S1 (Rein) was offered as an SUV 5-doors with 2.0 MT and 2.4 MT versions. For buyers comparing the available specifications, the main dividing lines are engine output, drive system, weight, and production period. The original model, produced from December 2006 through December 2010, offered 2.0 MT with RWD and 2.4 MT with AWD. The restyled model, produced from January 2011 through December 2013, made AWD standard for both versions, raised output slightly, and moved to Euro 4. On the supplied figures, the restyled 2.0 MT is the strongest power-to-weight choice, while the restyled 2.4 MT provides the highest torque and the only measured acceleration result.
JAC S1 Rein generations and version changes
The first generation ran from December 2006 to December 2010 as an SUV 5-doors with 2 versions. Its 2.0 MT produced 128 hp and 172 Nm, used RWD, and had a kerb weight of 1,700 kg. Its 2.4 MT produced 130 hp and 192 Nm, combined AWD with a 1,810 kg kerb weight, and therefore offered 20 Nm more torque than the 2.0 MT but only 2 hp more power.
The first-generation restyling ran from January 2011 to December 2013, retaining the SUV 5-doors body and 2 versions. The restyled 2.0 MT gained 1 hp, kept 172 Nm, switched from RWD to AWD, and increased in kerb weight from 1,700 to 1,810 kg. The restyled 2.4 MT gained 6 hp and 1 Nm while retaining AWD and a 1,810 kg kerb weight. Both restyled versions meet Euro 4 rather than the Euro 3 specification listed for both earlier versions.
Engine and specs comparison
Every JAC S1 (Rein) version uses Gasoline, an Inline 4-cylinder engine with 4 valves per cylinder, no boost, and distributed injection (multi-point). Every version also has a Manual gearbox with 5 gears. The differences lie in displacement, output, and drive.
| Production period | Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2006–Dec 2010 | 2.0 MT | 128 hp at 6,000 rpm | 172 Nm at 3,000 rpm | 1,997 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | RWD |
| Dec 2006–Dec 2010 | 2.4 MT | 130 hp at 5,500 rpm | 192 Nm at 3,000 rpm | 2,351 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | AWD |
| Jan 2011–Dec 2013 restyling | 2.0 MT | 129 hp at 6,000 rpm | 172 Nm at 3,000 rpm | 1,997 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | AWD |
| Jan 2011–Dec 2013 restyling | 2.4 MT | 136 hp at 5,500 rpm | 193 Nm at 3,000 rpm | 2,351 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | AWD |
Power per litre helps show how effectively the available displacement translates into output. The original 2.0 MT develops approximately 64.1 hp per litre, compared with approximately 55.3 hp per litre for the original 2.4 MT. After restyling, the 2.0 MT reaches approximately 64.6 hp per litre, while the 2.4 MT reaches approximately 57.8 hp per litre. The 2.0 MT is therefore the stronger choice by power per litre in both production periods.
The 2.4 MT instead offers more torque. It exceeds the contemporary 2.0 MT by 20 Nm before restyling and by 21 Nm after restyling. Both engines reach maximum torque at 3,000 rpm, while the 2.4 MT reaches maximum power at 5,500 rpm rather than the 6,000 rpm specified for the 2.0 MT.
Performance, mpg, and economy
Only the restyled 2.4 MT has a measured acceleration figure: 0–100 km/h takes 14 seconds. Acceleration for the original 2.0 MT, original 2.4 MT, and restyled 2.0 MT is not measured.
| Production period | Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption | CO₂ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2006–Dec 2010 | 2.0 MT | not measured | 160 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Dec 2006–Dec 2010 | 2.4 MT | not measured | 160 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Jan 2011–Dec 2013 restyling | 2.0 MT | not measured | 170 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Jan 2011–Dec 2013 restyling | 2.4 MT | 14 seconds | 160 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
The restyled 2.0 MT has the highest listed top speed at 170 km/h, which is 10 km/h above every other version. The 2.4 MT does not gain top speed after restyling: both the original and restyled specifications list 160 km/h.
City, highway, and combined fuel consumption are not measured for any version, so the supplied data cannot support an mpg comparison. CO₂ output is also not measured throughout the range. All versions have a 65-litre tank and use fuel labelled 92.
Dimensions, weight, and ground clearance
The original 2.0 MT is the lightest version at 1,700 kg kerb weight and 2,100 kg gross weight. The original 2.4 MT and both restyled versions each weigh 1,810 kg kerb and 2,140 kg gross. Choosing the original 2.4 MT over the contemporary 2.0 MT adds 110 kg of kerb weight and 40 kg of gross weight.
| Production period | Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2006–Dec 2010 | 2.0 MT | 1,700 kg | 2,100 kg | 205 mm | 65 litres | not measured |
| Dec 2006–Dec 2010 | 2.4 MT | 1,810 kg | 2,140 kg | 205 mm | 65 litres | not measured |
| Jan 2011–Dec 2013 restyling | 2.0 MT | 1,810 kg | 2,140 kg | 205 mm | 65 litres | not measured |
| Jan 2011–Dec 2013 restyling | 2.4 MT | 1,810 kg | 2,140 kg | 205 mm | 65 litres | not measured |
Ground clearance is identical across the catalogue at 205 mm, and wheel sizes are not measured for any version. Independent, spring suspension is listed at both the front and rear throughout the range, with Disc brakes at both ends.
Weight per horsepower distinguishes the versions more clearly. The original 2.0 MT carries approximately 13.3 kg per hp, the original 2.4 MT approximately 13.9 kg per hp, the restyled 2.0 MT approximately 14.0 kg per hp, and the restyled 2.4 MT approximately 13.3 kg per hp. Although the restyled 2.0 MT has the best power-per-litre result, the original 2.0 MT and restyled 2.4 MT have the most favourable rounded weight-per-horsepower figures.
Reliability and problems
Reliability records and reported problems are not measured in the supplied data, so no version can be ranked by failure rate or repair history. What can be compared directly is specification complexity: the original 2.0 MT is the only RWD version, whereas the original 2.4 MT and both restyled versions use AWD. All engines are naturally aspirated because boost is listed as No, and all share a Manual gearbox with 5 gears. These specifications describe the hardware but do not establish that one version is more reliable than another.
Which JAC S1 (Rein) version should you buy?
The restyled 2.0 MT is the most balanced specification if the priorities are AWD, engine output per litre, and top speed. It produces 129 hp and 172 Nm from 1,997 cc, delivers approximately 64.6 hp per litre, and is the only version rated at 170 km/h. Its trade-off against the original 2.0 MT is an additional 110 kg of kerb weight, while the listed power gain is only 1 hp; the major specification change is AWD replacing RWD.
Choose the restyled 2.4 MT when maximum output and torque matter most. Its 136 hp and 193 Nm are the highest figures in the range, exceeding the restyled 2.0 MT by 7 hp and 21 Nm. Both restyled versions weigh 1,810 kg, use AWD, and have the same 205 mm clearance and 65-litre tank, so the larger engine’s extra displacement buys additional output without an accompanying increase in listed kerb weight. It is also the only version with measured acceleration, reaching 100 km/h in 14 seconds.
The original 2.0 MT makes the clearest case for buyers who specifically prefer RWD or the lowest listed weight. At 1,700 kg, it is 110 kg lighter than every other version and combines 128 hp with the range’s joint-best rounded weight-per-horsepower figure. The original 2.4 MT adds AWD and 20 Nm over that version, but it also adds 110 kg while gaining only 2 hp.
Overall, the restyled 2.0 MT is the specification-led choice for power per litre and maximum speed, while the restyled 2.4 MT is the choice for maximum power, maximum torque, and a measured acceleration figure. The earlier 2.0 MT remains distinct because it is the lightest and only RWD option; the earlier 2.4 MT is best understood as the first-generation route to AWD rather than the strongest performance choice.