Kia Carstar specs that actually differ between versions

Same engine, same drive, same body, same years. The buyer decision is gearbox plus the figures that gearbox changes.

Same engine, same drive, same body, same years. The buyer decision is gearbox plus the figures that gearbox changes.

VersionhpNmcm³FuelCylindersLayoutBoostGearboxGearsDrive
2.0 MT1391821997Gasoline4InlineNoManual5FWD
2.0 AT1391821997Gasoline4InlineNoAutomatic4FWD

Power per litre is identical: 139 hp ÷ 1.997 L ≈ 69.6 hp/L (102 kW ÷ 1.997 L ≈ 51.1 kW/L). Torque per litre is also identical: 182 Nm ÷ 1.997 L ≈ 91.1 Nm/L. The catalogue does not give a power or torque split between versions. What you pay extra for on 2.0 AT is not more engine; it is Automatic with one fewer gear (4 vs 5).

Performance and mpg: what the extra Automatic costs in numbers

2.0 MT: 0–100 km/h 12.8 s, top speed 175 km/h, city 13.4 L/100 km, highway 7.5 L/100 km, combined 9.7 L/100 km. 2.0 AT: 0–100 km/h 14.6 s, top speed 170 km/h, city 15.4 L/100 km, highway 9.5 L/100 km, combined 11.4 L/100 km.

Arithmetic on those catalogue figures:

On a 60 L tank (both versions: bak 60 L):

City-only range: 2.0 MT 60 ÷ 13.4 × 100 ≈ 448 km; 2.0 AT 60 ÷ 15.4 × 100 ≈ 390 km (about 58 km shorter). Highway-only range: 2.0 MT 60 ÷ 7.5 × 100 ≈ 800 km; 2.0 AT 60 ÷ 9.5 × 100 ≈ 632 km (about 168 km shorter). The highway gap is the largest economy penalty of Automatic in this pair.

CO2 is not measured for 2.0 MT. CO2 is not measured for 2.0 AT. Eco class is not measured for either version.

There is no catalogue price, so “what the extra money buys” cannot be stated in currency. In measured performance and mpg, Automatic does not buy speed or range. It buys 4-speed Automatic instead of 5-speed Manual, at +1.8 s to 100 km/h, −5 km/h top speed, and +1.7 L/100 km combined.

Dimensions and weight: which version is lighter per horsepower

Ground clearance is 170 mm on both 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT. Tank is 60 L on both. Wheel sizes are not measured on 2.0 MT. Wheel sizes are not measured on 2.0 AT. Gross vehicle weight is not measured on 2.0 MT. Gross vehicle weight is not measured on 2.0 AT.

Kerb weight is 1350 kg on 2.0 MT and not measured on 2.0 AT. You cannot compare kerb weight between the two versions from this data. You can compute weight per horsepower only for 2.0 MT: 1350 ÷ 139 ≈ 9.71 kg/hp (1350 ÷ 102 ≈ 13.2 kg/kW). For 2.0 AT, kg/hp is not measured because kerb mass is not measured.

Front suspension is Independent, spring on both versions. Rear suspension is Independent, spring on both. Front brakes are Ventilated disc on both. Rear brakes are Disc ventilated on both (catalogue English label). Chassis layout is not a reason to prefer one version over the other in this dataset.

Engine position is not measured for 2.0 MT. Engine position is not measured for 2.0 AT.

Generations: there is only one, so the “which generation” question is closed

Kia Carstar has 1 generation (`pokoleniy` 1), key 2628, years 1999-01-01 to 2003-12-31, body Compact Van, 2 versions. There is no restyling listed as a separate generation. There is no second generation with a different engine, drive, or body to compare.

That means you cannot buy a “later Carstar” from this catalogue to gain more hp, AWD, or a different tank. The generation did not change power (both versions 139 hp), did not change displacement (both 1997 cm³), did not change drive (both FWD), did not change clearance (both 170 mm), and did not change tank (both 60 L). Inside the generation, the only numbered split is Manual 5 vs Automatic 4.

If someone is comparing Carstar to a later Kia compact van from another model line, that is outside this dataset. Inside Carstar, generation choice is not a choice.

Which version to choose: 2.0 MT vs 2.0 AT

Choose 2.0 MT if you want the faster of the two, the higher top speed, and the lower fuel use. It is the only version with a measured kerb weight (1350 kg) and therefore the only one with a usable kg/hp figure (≈9.71). It is Manual, 5 gears, FWD, 139 hp, 182 Nm, 12.8 s to 100 km/h, 175 km/h, 9.7 L/100 km combined.

Choose 2.0 AT if the requirement is Automatic. Do not choose it for more power: 139 hp and 182 Nm are the same as 2.0 MT. Do not choose it for economy: combined 11.4 vs 9.7 L/100 km. Do not choose it for acceleration: 14.6 s vs 12.8 s. Do not choose it for a larger tank or higher clearance: 60 L and 170 mm on both. You are buying 4-speed Automatic and accepting the measured +1.8 s, −5 km/h, and +1.7 L/100 km.

Do not split the two by engine type. Both are Gasoline, 4 Inline, boost No, distributed injection (multi-point), 95 fuel, compression 9.5, 86 × 86. There is no diesel, no turbo, no extra cylinder, no other displacement in this model’s data.

Reliability and problems: this launch data does not include failure rates, recalls, or service costs. Those topics are not measured here. A version cannot be ranked as “more reliable” from hp, Nm, or L/100 km alone.

Practical ranking from the given numbers only

1. 2.0 MT — best 0–100 (12.8 s), best top speed (175 km/h), best city/highway/combined (13.4 / 7.5 / 9.7), only measured kerb (1350 kg). Default buy if you will use Manual. 2. 2.0 AT — same 139 hp engine, Automatic 4, slower and thirstier on every measured speed and mpg line. Buy when Automatic is the constraint, not when you want a stronger Carstar.

Same generation, same Compact Van, same FWD, same 170 mm, same 60 L. The arithmetic does not support treating 2.0 AT as the “loaded” or “more powerful” car. It is the same 1997 cm³ Gasoline four with a 4-speed Automatic instead of a 5-speed Manual.