Mitsubishi Emeraude

Which Mitsubishi Emeraude version to buy: 1.8 vs 2.0, 110 vs 200 hp, FWD vs AWD

The Mitsubishi Emeraude was sold in one generation only (October 1992–July 1996), as a Sedan, in 12 versions. There is no later generation to “wait for,” so the choice is which engine, gearbox, and drive inside that single run. Power spans 110 hp to 200 hp (+90 hp, about 82% more at the top). Kerb weight spans 1180 kg to 1440 kg (+260 kg, about 22%).

The Mitsubishi Emeraude was sold in one generation only (October 1992–July 1996), as a Sedan, in 12 versions. There is no later generation to “wait for,” so the choice is which engine, gearbox, and drive inside that single run. Power spans 110 hp to 200 hp (+90 hp, about 82% more at the top). Kerb weight spans 1180 kg to 1440 kg (+260 kg, about 22%). All 12 use Gasoline, boost No, a 64 L tank, and Independent, spring suspension front and rear. Only the 2.0 MT at 200 hp has measured 0–100, top speed, and fuel use; every other 0–100, top speed, consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight, and wheel size is not measured.

If you want the strongest measured power-to-weight among versions that list a kerb weight, take the 2.0 MT 200 hp. If you want the lightest car, take the 1.8 MT 110 hp. If you need AWD, only two versions have it: 2.0 AT 170 hp AWD and 2.0 MT 170 hp AWD.

Generations: one run, twelve versions, no restyle to pick

1 generation (1992-10-01 to 1996-07-31), Sedan, 12 versions. Years, body, and the version list do not split by facelift in this data, so you cannot choose “pre-restyle vs restyle.” You choose among the 12 mechanical combinations below.

Engines and specs: every version named as in the database

Same names appear more than once. Distinguish them by power (and, where needed, by drive).

Feed: Carburetor on both 1.8 110 hp versions; Distributed injection (multi-point) on the other ten. Compression 9.5 on 110 / 135 / 145 hp versions; 10 on all 170 hp and 200 hp versions. Bore × stroke: 81 × 89 (110 hp), 75 × 69 (135 hp), 78.4 × 69 (145 and 170 hp), 78 × 69 (200 hp). Engine location Front, transverse on ten versions; not measured on both 200 hp versions.

Specific output (hp per litre of displacement):

• 1.8 MT / 1.8 AT 110 hp, 1834 cc: 60.0 hp/L
• 2.0 MT / 2.0 AT 145 hp, 1998 cc: 72.6 hp/L
• 1.8 AT / 1.8 MT 135 hp, 1829 cc: 73.8 hp/L
• 2.0 170 hp (all four), 1998 cc: 85.1 hp/L
• 2.0 AT / 2.0 MT 200 hp, 1998 cc: 100.1 hp/L

The 135 hp 1.8 (6, V-shaped) makes 25 hp more than the 110 hp 1.8 (4, Inline) from 5 cc less displacement, and 13.8 hp/L more. Stepping from 145 hp to 170 hp on the 1998 cc engine is +25 hp and +12.5 hp/L. Stepping from 170 hp to 200 hp is another +30 hp and +15.0 hp/L. The 200 hp 2.0 makes 90 hp more than the 110 hp 1.8 from only 164 cc more.

Torque: 154 Nm (110 hp) → 166 Nm (135 hp, +12 Nm) → 181 Nm (145 hp, +15 Nm vs 135) → 186 Nm (170 hp, +5 Nm vs 145) → 200 Nm (200 hp, +14 Nm vs 170). Peak torque rpm is lowest on the carburetor 110 hp engines (3000), mid on 170 hp (4000), 4500 on 135/145 hp, and highest on 200 hp (6000). The 200 hp pair also peak power later (7500 vs 6000 or 7000).

Performance and economy (mpg): only one version is measured

2.0 MT 200 hp: 0–100 9.8 s, top speed 205, city 10, highway 7.3, mixed 8.5. CO2 not measured. Eco class not measured.

For the other eleven versions, 0–100, top speed, city, highway, mixed, and CO2 are not measured. Do not treat a blank as “this car has no 0–100.” It was not measured in this dataset.

Fuel grade: 92 on all 110 hp, 135 hp, and 145 hp versions; 95 on all 170 hp and 200 hp versions. That is the only measured fuel split. Consumption is not measured on the 92 cars, so you cannot rank mpg between 1.8 and 2.0 from these figures.

Dimensions and weight: what extra hardware costs in kilograms

Kerb weights that are measured:

Gross weight: not measured on all 12. Wheel sizes: not measured on all 12. Tank: 64 L on all 12. Front brakes: Ventilated disc on all 12.

Automatic vs Manual on the same engine and drive:

• 1.8 AT 110 vs 1.8 MT 110: +20 kg
• 1.8 AT 135 vs 1.8 MT 135: +20 kg
• 2.0 AT 145 vs 2.0 MT 145: +20 kg
• 2.0 AT 170 FWD vs 2.0 MT 170 FWD: +40 kg
• 2.0 AT 170 AWD vs 2.0 MT 170 AWD: +20 kg
• 2.0 AT 200 vs 2.0 MT 200: Automatic kerb not measured, so the Automatic penalty is not measured

AWD vs FWD at 170 hp:

• 2.0 MT AWD 1420 kg vs 2.0 MT FWD 1290 kg: +130 kg
• 2.0 AT AWD 1440 kg vs 2.0 AT FWD 1330 kg: +110 kg
• AWD also adds 10 mm ground clearance (160 vs 150) and changes rear brakes from Disc to Disc ventilated

Lightest to heaviest among measured kerbs: 1180 → 1440 kg (+260 kg). Best measured kg/hp: 2.0 MT 200 hp at 6.70 kg/hp. Worst: 1.8 AT 110 hp at 10.91 kg/hp. The 2.0 MT 170 hp FWD (7.59 kg/hp) is closer to the 200 hp Manual than to any 1.8.

2.0 MT 200 hp at 1340 kg is 160 kg heavier than 1.8 MT 110 hp at 1180 kg, for +90 hp. That is 1.78 kg per extra horsepower on that pair.

Which version to choose

There are no prices in this data, so “what the extra money buys” is what the extra kilograms, horsepower, fuel grade, gearbox, and drive buy.

If you want the strongest measured punch: 2.0 MT 200 hp. It is the only version with 0–100 9.8 s, top speed 205, and mixed 8.5. It has the highest specific output among the twelve (100.1 hp/L) and the lowest measured kg/hp (6.70). Fuel is 95. Drive is FWD. Rear brakes are Disc. Kerb 1340 kg.

If you want 200 hp but Automatic: 2.0 AT 200 hp. Same 200 hp / 147 kW @ 7500, 200 Nm @ 6000, 1998 cc, 6, V-shaped, fuel 95, FWD, Automatic 4. Kerb weight not measured, so you cannot compare kg/hp with the Manual twin. 0–100, top speed, and mpg are not measured on this Automatic. Engine location not measured.

If you want 170 hp without AWD weight: 2.0 MT 170 hp FWD (1290 kg, 7.59 kg/hp) or 2.0 AT 170 hp FWD (1330 kg, 7.82 kg/hp). Versus 2.0 MT 200 hp, you give up 30 hp and 14 Nm, gain 5 kg (Manual 170 vs Manual 200: 1290 vs 1340, the 170 FWD Manual is actually 50 kg lighter) and still use 95. Versus 145 hp, you gain 25 hp and 5 Nm for +40 kg on the Manuals (1290 vs 1250).

If you need AWD: only 2.0 MT 170 hp AWD (1420 kg, 160 mm, Disc ventilated rear) and 2.0 AT 170 hp AWD (1440 kg, 160 mm, Disc ventilated rear). There is no AWD 200 hp and no AWD 1.8. You pay 130 kg (Manual) or 110 kg (Automatic) versus the matching FWD 170 hp car, and you sit at 8.35–8.47 kg/hp, which is worse than FWD 170 hp and worse than FWD 145 hp Manual (8.62 is close; AWD Automatic at 8.47 still beats 145 hp Automatic at 8.76). Clearance is the only 160 mm in the line.

If you want a 2.0 on 92 fuel and do not need 170+ hp: 2.0 MT 145 hp (1250 kg, 8.62 kg/hp) or 2.0 AT 145 hp (1270 kg, 8.76 kg/hp). Versus 1.8 135 hp, you gain 10 hp and 15 Nm from 169 cc more, with the same 92 fuel and the same 6, V-shaped layout. Manual 145 and Automatic 135 both list 1250 kg; the 145 Manual therefore matches the 135 Automatic’s weight with 10 hp more. Rear brakes step from Drum (all 1.8s) to Disc.

If you want a compact 6, V-shaped 1.8: 1.8 MT 135 hp (1230 kg, 9.11 kg/hp) or 1.8 AT 135 hp (1250 kg, 9.26 kg/hp). Versus 1.8 110 hp, you gain 25 hp and 12 Nm, switch from 4, Inline, Carburetor to 6, V-shaped, Distributed injection (multi-point), and add 50 kg (Manual: 1230 vs 1180) or 50 kg (Automatic: 1250 vs 1200). Specific output jumps from 60.0 to 73.8 hp/L. Fuel stays 92. Rear brakes stay Drum.

If you want the lightest Emeraude and the lowest peak-rpm torque: 1.8 MT 110 hp (1180 kg) or 1.8 AT 110 hp (1200 kg). 154 Nm @ 3000 is the earliest torque peak. These are the only Carburetor versions. They are the weakest (110 hp, 60.0 hp/L, 10.73–10.91 kg/hp). Choose them only if kerb weight and 4, Inline simplicity matter more than power.

Manual vs Automatic, same power: Manual is 5 gears, Automatic is 4. Weight penalty is 20 kg on four of five comparable pairs and 40 kg on FWD 170 hp. Performance of Automatics is not measured except that they exist; only the 2.0 MT 200 hp has a timed 0–100.

Problems and reliability: this dataset has no failure rates, no service intervals, and no known-fault list. What you can rank is complexity that is in the numbers: Carburetor vs Distributed injection (multi-point); 4, Inline vs 6, V-shaped; FWD vs AWD (+110–130 kg); Drum rear (all four 1.8 versions) vs Disc (FWD 2.0) vs Disc ventilated (AWD 170 hp). Peak rpm 7500 on 200 hp vs 6000 on 110/135/145 hp is a measured difference in how hard the engine is specified to rev, not a reliability verdict.

Short buy list

1. Fastest measured, best kg/hp: 2.0 MT 200 hp. 2. Same peak power, Automatic: 2.0 AT 200 hp (kerb not measured). 3. Strong FWD without 200 hp: 2.0 MT 170 hp FWD, then 2.0 AT 170 hp FWD. 4. AWD only: 2.0 MT 170 hp AWD, then 2.0 AT 170 hp AWD. 5. 2.0 on 92 fuel: 2.0 MT 145 hp, then 2.0 AT 145 hp. 6. 1.8 with injection and 6, V-shaped: 1.8 MT 135 hp, then 1.8 AT 135 hp. 7. Lightest: 1.8 MT 110 hp, then 1.8 AT 110 hp.

One generation, twelve versions, one body. Pick by the table, not by a later Emeraude that is not in this data.