Lifan Breez (520): Which Version Should You Choose?
The Lifan Breez (520) is a front-wheel-drive Sedan offered in one generation from May 2007 to July 2012. The choice centers on three distinct specifications: 1.3 MT with 89 hp, 1.6 MT with 106 hp, and 1.6 MT with 115 hp. Two separate database entries exist for both the 89 hp 1.3 MT and the 106 hp 1.6 MT, with differences in weight, fuel-tank capacity, and recorded consumption.
The Lifan Breez (520) is a front-wheel-drive Sedan offered in one generation from May 2007 to July 2012. The choice centers on three distinct specifications: 1.3 MT with 89 hp, 1.6 MT with 106 hp, and 1.6 MT with 115 hp. Two separate database entries exist for both the 89 hp 1.3 MT and the 106 hp 1.6 MT, with differences in weight, fuel-tank capacity, and recorded consumption. The 115 hp 1.6 MT is the strongest and fastest version, while the lighter 89 hp 1.3 MT has the best weight-to-power ratio among the two 1.3 entries.
Generation and version choice
The only generation of the Lifan Breez (520) ran from May 2007 through July 2012. It used a Sedan body and contains five listed modifications. Because every version belongs to the same generation, there is no intergenerational change to compare: the meaningful differences are engine displacement, output, performance, consumption, weight, tank capacity, and rear-suspension specification.
All five modifications use a Gasoline engine mounted Front, transverse, a Manual gearbox with 5 gears, and FWD. Every engine is naturally aspirated, with boost recorded as No.
Engine specs comparison
| Exact version | Identifying output | Displacement | Power density | Torque | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 MT | 89 hp / 65 kW | 1,342 cc | 66.3 hp/L | 115 Nm at 3,200–4,800 rpm | 92 | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | FWD |
| 1.6 MT | 106 hp / 78 kW | 1,587 cc | 66.8 hp/L | 137 Nm at 4,500–4,800 rpm | 92 | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | FWD |
| 1.6 MT | 115 hp / 85 kW | 1,596 cc | 72.1 hp/L | 149 Nm at 4,500 rpm | not measured | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | FWD |
| 1.3 MT | 89 hp / 65 kW | 1,342 cc | 66.3 hp/L | 115 Nm at 4,800 rpm | 92 | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | FWD |
| 1.6 MT | 106 hp / 78 kW | 1,587 cc | 66.8 hp/L | 137 Nm at 4,500–4,800 rpm | 92 | 4, Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | FWD |
The 106 hp 1.6 MT adds 17 hp and 22 Nm over either 89 hp 1.3 MT, while displacement rises by 245 cc. The 115 hp 1.6 MT adds another 9 hp and 12 Nm over the 106 hp version for only 9 cc more displacement. It therefore has the highest specific output at 72.1 hp/L, compared with 66.8 hp/L for the 106 hp engine and 66.3 hp/L for the 89 hp engine.
The 89 hp and 106 hp engines have Distributed injection (multi-point) and 4 valves per cylinder. For the 115 hp 1.6 MT, the injection system and valves per cylinder are not measured. Its fuel grade is also not measured.
Performance, fuel consumption and mpg-related figures
| Exact version | Identifying output / weight | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 MT | 89 hp, 1,135 kg | 14.5 s | 155 km/h | 9.0 L/100 km | 5.7 L/100 km | 7.0 L/100 km |
| 1.6 MT | 106 hp, 1,155 kg | 10.5 s | 170 km/h | 9.2 L/100 km | 5.9 L/100 km | 7.2 L/100 km |
| 1.6 MT | 115 hp, 1,155 kg | 10.5 s | 176 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.3 MT | 89 hp, 1,065 kg | 14.5 s | 155 km/h | 9.7 L/100 km | 5.5 L/100 km | 7.6 L/100 km |
| 1.6 MT | 106 hp, 1,130 kg | 10.5 s | 170 km/h | 9.1 L/100 km | 5.8 L/100 km | 7.1 L/100 km |
Either 106 hp 1.6 MT reaches 100 km/h 4.0 seconds sooner than either 89 hp 1.3 MT, and its maximum speed is 15 km/h higher. The 115 hp 1.6 MT records the same 10.5-second acceleration time as the 106 hp cars but raises maximum speed by another 6 km/h, to 176 km/h.
The most economical recorded combined figure belongs to the 1,135 kg, 51-litre-tank 1.3 MT at 7.0 L/100 km. The 1,130 kg, 49-litre-tank 1.6 MT is only 0.1 L/100 km behind it while providing 17 hp more and cutting 4.0 seconds from the 0–100 km/h time. This makes that 106 hp entry the strongest numerical compromise between performance and measured consumption.
The other 106 hp 1.6 MT consumes 7.2 L/100 km combined, while the lighter 1,065 kg 1.3 MT records 7.6 L/100 km. The latter has the lowest highway result at 5.5 L/100 km, but its city consumption is the highest measured figure at 9.7 L/100 km. Fuel consumption for the 115 hp 1.6 MT is not measured, so its economy cannot be compared reliably with the other versions.
Dimensions, weight and capacity
Exterior dimensions and wheel sizes are not measured for any version. Ground clearance is 155 mm throughout the range. Depending on the entry, fuel-tank capacity is either 49 or 51 litres.
| Exact version | Identifying output | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Weight per hp | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 MT | 89 hp | 1,135 kg | 1,560 kg | 12.8 kg/hp | 155 mm | 51 L | not measured |
| 1.6 MT | 106 hp | 1,155 kg | 1,580 kg | 10.9 kg/hp | 155 mm | 51 L | not measured |
| 1.6 MT | 115 hp | 1,155 kg | 1,580 kg | 10.0 kg/hp | 155 mm | 51 L | not measured |
| 1.3 MT | 89 hp | 1,065 kg | 1,440 kg | 12.0 kg/hp | 155 mm | 49 L | not measured |
| 1.6 MT | 106 hp | 1,130 kg | 1,555 kg | 10.7 kg/hp | 155 mm | 49 L | not measured |
The 115 hp 1.6 MT has the best weight-to-power ratio at roughly 10.0 kg/hp. The 1,130 kg version of the 106 hp 1.6 MT follows at about 10.7 kg/hp, while the 1,155 kg version returns about 10.9 kg/hp. Among the 1.3 cars, the 1,065 kg entry is 70 kg lighter than the 1,135 kg entry and improves the ratio from about 12.8 to 12.0 kg/hp.
Every version has Independent, spring front suspension, Ventilated disc front brakes, and Drum rear brakes. Four entries list Independent, torsion rear suspension. The 115 hp 1.6 MT instead has Semi-independent, spring rear suspension.
Reliability and problems
Reliability history, recurring problems, repair costs, and component life are not measured in the supplied data. The specifications therefore cannot support a claim that one engine or gearbox is more reliable than another. A purchase decision based on reliability needs vehicle-specific inspection and service information, neither of which is measured here.
Which Lifan Breez (520) version should you buy?
For the best balance in the available figures, choose the 1.6 MT with 106 hp, 1,130 kg kerb weight, 49-litre tank, and 7.1 L/100 km combined consumption. Compared with the 1,065 kg 1.3 MT, it supplies 17 hp and 22 Nm more, reaches 100 km/h 4.0 seconds sooner, and increases top speed by 15 km/h while using 0.5 L/100 km less on the combined cycle. Its 5.8 L/100 km highway figure is only 0.3 L/100 km higher.
Choose the 1.6 MT with 115 hp when maximum output and top speed matter most. It delivers 9 hp and 12 Nm more than either 106 hp 1.6 MT, has the range’s best power density and weight-to-power ratio, and reaches 176 km/h. However, its city, highway, and combined consumption are not measured, so the data cannot show what its extra performance costs in fuel.
Choose the 1.3 MT with 89 hp, 1,135 kg kerb weight, and 51-litre tank when the lowest recorded combined consumption is the priority. Its 7.0 L/100 km result is the best listed, though acceleration takes 14.5 seconds and top speed is 155 km/h.
The lighter 1.3 MT with 89 hp, 1,065 kg kerb weight, and 49-litre tank is preferable only if its 70 kg weight reduction or 5.5 L/100 km highway result is decisive. Its 7.6 L/100 km combined consumption is 0.6 L/100 km higher than the other 89 hp entry, despite identical displacement, power, acceleration, and maximum speed.
On the numbers alone, the 106 hp 1.6 MT at 1,130 kg is the most rounded choice, the 115 hp 1.6 MT is the performance choice, and the 89 hp 1.3 MT at 1,135 kg is the measured combined-economy choice.