Nissan Liberty

Nissan Liberty: which version to buy

There is only one generation of the Nissan Liberty (Compact Van, November 1998–November 2004) and five versions, all 1998 cc Gasoline inline-4s with a front, transverse layout, 4 valves per cylinder, multi-point injection, a 60 L tank, 160 mm ground clearance, independent spring suspension at both ends, ventilated disc front brakes and drum rear brakes.

There is only one generation of the Nissan Liberty (Compact Van, November 1998–November 2004) and five versions, all 1998 cc Gasoline inline-4s with a front, transverse layout, 4 valves per cylinder, multi-point injection, a 60 L tank, 160 mm ground clearance, independent spring suspension at both ends, ventilated disc front brakes and drum rear brakes. The buying question is therefore not “which generation” but which of five 2.0-litre packages: two 2.0 CVT (140 hp FWD and 147 hp FWD) and three 2.0 AT (140 hp AWD, 147 hp AWD, 230 hp Turbo AWD). Acceleration to 100 km/h and fuel consumption are not measured on any version; top speed is measured only on the 2.0 CVT 147 hp (180 km/h). Wheel sizes are not measured on any version.

Specs that actually separate the five versions

Bore × stroke and compression also split the naturally aspirated pair: 86 × 86 mm and 10.0 on both 140 hp versions versus 89 × 80.3 mm and 9.9 on both 147 hp versions. The 2.0 AT 230 hp reuses 86 × 86 mm with compression 9.0 and Turbo.

Engine: 70, 74 or 115 hp per litre

All five engines displace 1998 cc, so specific output is a clean ranking.

• 2.0 CVT 140 hp and 2.0 AT 140 hp: 140 / 1.998 ≈ 70.1 hp/L. Peak torque arrives late (4800 rpm). Fuel is 92.
• 2.0 AT 147 hp and 2.0 CVT 147 hp: 147 / 1.998 ≈ 73.6 hp/L — +3.5 hp/L versus the 140 hp pair, +7 hp and +12 Nm, with torque peaking 800 rpm earlier (4000 vs 4800). Fuel is 95.
• 2.0 AT 230 hp: 230 / 1.998 ≈ 115.1 hp/L — +45.0 hp/L versus the 140 hp pair and +41.5 hp/L versus the 147 hp pair. Versus 140 hp that is +90 hp and +89 Nm; versus 147 hp it is +83 hp and +77 Nm. Torque peaks earliest of the five (3600 rpm). Fuel is 95.

The 147 hp naturally aspirated pair is not a different displacement; it is a different bore/stroke (89 × 80.3 vs 86 × 86) and a 0.1-point lower compression ratio, plus 95 instead of 92. The Turbo 2.0 AT keeps the 86 × 86 geometry of the 140 hp engines but drops compression from 10.0 to 9.0.

If the brief is “same Compact Van, least fuel-grade constraint,” the two 140 hp versions are the only ones specified for 92. If the brief is “same 2.0 litres, most power,” only the Turbo 2.0 AT answers: 230 hp and 275 Nm, still 1998 cc.

Weight per horsepower and what AWD costs in kilograms

Kerb weights in the data: 2.0 CVT 140 hp 1490 kg; 2.0 CVT 147 hp 1500 kg; 2.0 AT 147 hp 1560 kg; 2.0 AT 140 hp 1590 kg; 2.0 AT 230 hp 1630 kg. Ground clearance does not change (160 mm on all five).

Weight per horsepower:

• 2.0 CVT 147 hp: 1500 / 147 ≈ 10.20 kg/hp — lightest naturally aspirated ratio.
• 2.0 AT 147 hp: 1560 / 147 ≈ 10.61 kg/hp.
• 2.0 CVT 140 hp: 1490 / 140 ≈ 10.64 kg/hp.
• 2.0 AT 140 hp: 1590 / 140 ≈ 11.36 kg/hp — heaviest ratio of the five.
• 2.0 AT 230 hp: 1630 / 230 ≈ 7.09 kg/hp — 3.11 kg/hp lighter than the 140 hp FWD CVT and 4.27 kg/hp lighter than the 140 hp AWD automatic.

AWD is not free mass. Same 140 hp engine: 2.0 AT AWD is 100 kg heavier than 2.0 CVT FWD (1590 − 1490). Same 147 hp engine: 2.0 AT AWD is 60 kg heavier than 2.0 CVT FWD (1560 − 1500). The Turbo AWD 2.0 AT is 140 kg heavier than the 140 hp FWD CVT and 130 kg heavier than the 147 hp FWD CVT, but only 40 kg heavier than the 140 hp AWD automatic and 70 kg heavier than the 147 hp AWD automatic — the Turbo surcharge in kerb weight versus other AWD cars is modest.

Gross weight is measured on three versions only: 2.0 AT 147 hp 1885 kg, 2.0 CVT 147 hp 1885 kg, 2.0 AT 230 hp 2015 kg. Payload from those pairs: 1885 − 1560 = 325 kg on the 147 hp AWD automatic; 1885 − 1500 = 385 kg on the 147 hp FWD CVT; 2015 − 1630 = 385 kg on the Turbo. Gross weight is not measured on either 140 hp version. Wheel sizes are not measured on any version.

Tank capacity does not help you choose: 60 L on all five.

Gearbox and drive: Variable FWD versus 4-speed Automatic AWD

The split is binary and consistent.

• Both 2.0 CVT versions: Variable gearbox, FWD, no gear count in the data (`peredach` not measured).
• All three 2.0 AT versions: Automatic, 4 gears, AWD.

There is no FWD automatic and no AWD CVT in this generation. Choosing Variable means FWD; choosing Automatic means AWD. That is the whole transmission/drive map.

Chassis hardware that does not change with that choice: 160 mm clearance; independent, spring front and rear; ventilated disc front, drum rear. You are not buying a different brake or suspension architecture when you pick Turbo or AWD.

Performance and mpg: what is measured, what is not

• 0–100 km/h: not measured on 2.0 CVT 140 hp, 2.0 AT 140 hp, 2.0 AT 147 hp, 2.0 CVT 147 hp, 2.0 AT 230 hp.
• City / highway / combined consumption: not measured on all five. There is no mpg figure in the data to rank economy.
• Top speed: 180 km/h on 2.0 CVT 147 hp; not measured on the other four.

Do not infer that the Turbo is faster in a timed sprint or thirstier in litres: those numbers were not recorded here. The only speed figure you can cite is 180 km/h on the 147 hp FWD CVT.

Dimensions and weight (buying view)

Same clearance (160 mm) and same tank (60 L) on every version. Kerb weight spans 1490–1630 kg (140 kg from lightest FWD CVT to Turbo AWD). Gross weight, where measured, is 1885 kg on both 147 hp versions and 2015 kg on the Turbo (+130 kg versus the 147 hp gross). Wheels: not measured.

If payload matters and you stay with 147 hp, the FWD 2.0 CVT has 60 kg more payload than the AWD 2.0 AT (385 vs 325 kg) because gross is the same 1885 kg and the CVT is 60 kg lighter at the kerb. The Turbo matches the 147 hp CVT on payload (385 kg) but on a 2015 kg gross.

Which version to choose

Need AWD in this Compact Van. Only the three 2.0 AT cars: 140 hp, 147 hp, or 230 hp Turbo. There is no AWD CVT.

Need FWD and a Variable gearbox. Only the two 2.0 CVT cars. Pick 140 hp if 92 fuel and the 86 × 86 / compression-10 engine are the priority (lightest kerb of the five: 1490 kg). Pick 147 hp if you want the 73.6 hp/L naturally aspirated tune, 198 Nm at 4000 rpm, 95 fuel, 1500 kg, the only measured top speed (180 km/h), and 385 kg payload.

Lightest naturally aspirated AWD. 2.0 AT 147 hp at 1560 kg — 30 kg lighter than 2.0 AT 140 hp (1590 kg) and 7 hp / 12 Nm stronger, with earlier torque (4000 vs 4800 rpm). The 140 hp AWD automatic is the worst kg/hp of the generation (11.36). Unless 92 fuel is a hard constraint, the 147 hp 2.0 AT is the more coherent AWD automatic.

92 fuel only. 2.0 CVT 140 hp (FWD, 1490 kg) or 2.0 AT 140 hp (AWD, 1590 kg). Same 140 hp / 186 Nm / 70.1 hp/L engine. The AWD automatic costs 100 kg.

Most power and best kg/hp. 2.0 AT 230 hp: 230 hp, 275 Nm, Turbo, AWD, 4-speed Automatic, 1630 kg, 7.09 kg/hp, 2015 kg gross, 385 kg payload. Versus the 147 hp AWD automatic you pay 70 kg kerb and gain 83 hp and 77 Nm. Versus the 140 hp AWD automatic you pay 40 kg and gain 90 hp and 89 Nm. Consumption and 0–100 remain not measured, so the case for Turbo is power, torque, and mass-to-power — not a recorded sprint or mpg.

One-generation catalogue. Production is a single Compact Van run (November 1998–November 2004). There is no second generation to “wait for” and no restyle listed as a separate generation. The choice is entirely among the five named versions above.

Reliability / problems. Not in the data; this article does not invent failure rates. What the numbers do show: every version shares the same clearance, tank, suspension type and brake types; differences that will show up in use are drive (FWD vs AWD), gearbox (Variable vs 4-speed Automatic), boost (No vs Turbo), fuel grade (92 vs 95), kerb weight (1490–1630 kg), and the three power levels (140 / 147 / 230 hp).