Nissan Crew

Nissan Crew: which version to buy

The Nissan Crew ran as one generation of sedan from July 1993 to June 2009, with four versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.8 AT, and 2.8 MT. All four share rear-wheel drive, a front longitudinal engine, independent spring suspension at both ends, ventilated disc brakes at the front, drum brakes at the rear, 170 mm ground clearance, and a 72-litre tank.

The Nissan Crew ran as one generation of sedan from July 1993 to June 2009, with four versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.8 AT, and 2.8 MT. All four share rear-wheel drive, a front longitudinal engine, independent spring suspension at both ends, ventilated disc brakes at the front, drum brakes at the rear, 170 mm ground clearance, and a 72-litre tank. The buying question is therefore not “which generation” — there is only one — but which of the four powertrain pairings fits the job: gasoline 1998 cm³ at 130 hp versus diesel 2825 cm³ at 94 hp, and Manual 5 versus Automatic 4.

Specs that actually differ between versions

Same chassis, same years, same body. The arithmetic below is the whole comparison.

Power, torque, and what the extra displacement buys

2.0 MT and 2.0 AT make 130 hp from 1998 cm³: 65.1 hp per litre. Peak torque is 171 Nm at 4400 rpm. Compression is 9.5. Bore × stroke is 78 × 69.7. Fuel is 92. Feed is Distributed injection (multi-point).

2.8 AT and 2.8 MT make 94 hp from 2825 cm³: 33.3 hp per litre — about half the specific output of the 2.0 pair (65.1 ÷ 33.3 ≈ 1.96). Peak torque is 176 Nm at 2400 rpm. Compression is 22.4. Bore × stroke is 85 × 83. Fuel is Diesel. The fuel-system field is not measured.

On paper the diesel’s extra 827 cm³ does not buy more peak power: it is 36 hp down (130 − 94). It buys 5 Nm more peak torque (176 − 171) and it buys that torque 2000 rpm earlier (4400 − 2400). If the job is pulling from low engine speed, the 2.8 pair is the one with the number in the useful band. If the job is peak horsepower, the 2.0 pair is 38% more powerful (130 ÷ 94 ≈ 1.38).

Neither gasoline nor diesel has boost (No on all four). All four are Inline 6 with 4 valves per cylinder, Front, longitudinal, RWD. Cylinder count and layout are the same; they are not a reason to pick one version over another.

Weight per horsepower: the 2.0 pair is the lighter car in every sense

Kerb weights:

• 2.0 MT — 1240 kg
• 2.0 AT — 1260 kg
• 2.8 MT — 1340 kg
• 2.8 AT — 1360 kg

Gross weight is not measured on any version.

Mass per horsepower:

• 2.0 MT: 1240 ÷ 130 = 9.54 kg/hp
• 2.0 AT: 1260 ÷ 130 = 9.69 kg/hp
• 2.8 MT: 1340 ÷ 94 = 14.26 kg/hp
• 2.8 AT: 1360 ÷ 94 = 14.47 kg/hp

The lightest, strongest combination is 2.0 MT. The heaviest, weakest is 2.8 AT. Going from 2.0 MT to 2.8 AT adds 120 kg and subtracts 36 hp. Going from 2.0 MT to 2.0 AT adds only 20 kg for the Automatic 4. Going from 2.8 MT to 2.8 AT is the same 20 kg Automatic premium. Diesel versus gasoline at the same gearbox is a 100 kg step (2.8 MT 1340 vs 2.0 MT 1240; 2.8 AT 1360 vs 2.0 AT 1260).

Ground clearance is 170 mm on all four. Tank is 72 litres on all four. Wheel sizes are not measured on all four. None of those fields help you choose a version.

Gearbox: five Manual speeds versus four Automatic

2.0 MT and 2.8 MT are Manual, 5. 2.0 AT and 2.8 AT are Automatic, 4. That is the only transmission split. There is no Manual 4 and no Automatic 5 in this catalogue.

If you want the gasoline engine with the gearbox that has one extra ratio and the lowest kerb weight, that is 2.0 MT. If you want the same 130 hp / 171 Nm gasoline engine without a clutch, that is 2.0 AT, 20 kg heavier. If you want diesel torque at 2400 rpm with a clutch, that is 2.8 MT. If you want that diesel with Automatic 4, that is 2.8 AT, again 20 kg over its Manual twin.

There is no measured 0–100, top speed, city/highway/combined consumption, CO2, or eco class on any version. Those figures are not measured; they cannot be used to rank the four cars. The ranking that is allowed is power, torque rpm, displacement, fuel, gearbox, and kerb weight.

Generations: nothing changed between “then” and “now”

There is 1 generation (key 3961), sedan, July 1993 – June 2009, 4 versions. All four versions use the same start and stop dates. There is no second generation to “wait for” and no restyling generation listed as a separate row. Choosing a year inside 1993–2009 does not, on this data, change hp, Nm, tank, clearance, or drivetrain. The version name is the whole product decision.

Which version to choose, in numbers

Choose 2.0 MT if the priority is peak power and the lowest mass: 130 hp, 171 Nm at 4400 rpm, 1240 kg, 9.54 kg/hp, Manual 5, Gasoline 92, 1998 cm³. It is the lightest Crew in the table.

Choose 2.0 AT if you want that same 130 hp gasoline Inline 6 and will pay 20 kg and one fewer gear (Automatic 4, 1260 kg, 9.69 kg/hp). Engine figures match 2.0 MT exactly: 96 kW at 5600 rpm, 171 Nm at 4400, compression 9.5, 78 × 69.7, Distributed injection (multi-point).

Choose 2.8 MT if low-rpm torque matters more than peak hp: 176 Nm at 2400 rpm, 94 hp, Diesel, 2825 cm³, 22.4 compression, 85 × 83, Manual 5, 1340 kg. You give up 36 hp and 100 kg versus 2.0 MT, and you gain 5 Nm much earlier in the rev range. Specific output is 33.3 hp/l versus 65.1 hp/l on the 2.0 pair.

Choose 2.8 AT only if you need that diesel torque curve and Automatic 4. It is the heaviest Crew at 1360 kg and the weakest on a per-horsepower basis at 14.47 kg/hp. Versus 2.0 AT it is 100 kg heavier and 36 hp down, with the same four-speed Automatic and the same RWD sedan chassis.

Shared and therefore not a tie-breaker: RWD; Front, longitudinal; Inline 6; 4 valves per cylinder; boost No; independent spring suspension front and rear; ventilated disc front / drum rear; 170 mm clearance; 72-litre tank. Acceleration, top speed, mpg-style consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight, and wheel size are not measured on 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.8 AT, or 2.8 MT.

In one sentence: buy 2.0 MT for power-to-weight, 2.0 AT for the same engine without a clutch, 2.8 MT for 176 Nm at 2400 rpm with Manual 5, and 2.8 AT only if Automatic and Diesel must sit on the same car.