Nissan R'nessa: which version to buy (1997–2001)
The Nissan R'nessa ran as 1 generation from 1997-01-01 to 2001-12-31 in one body: Estate 5-door. There is no second generation and no restyle to pick, so the choice is only among 4 versions: 2.0 CVT (140 hp, FWD), 2.0 AT (140 hp, FWD), 2.0 AT (200 hp, AWD, Turbo), and 2.4 AT (152 hp, AWD).
Nissan R'nessa: which version to buy (1997–2001)
The Nissan R'nessa ran as 1 generation from 1997-01-01 to 2001-12-31 in one body: Estate 5-door. There is no second generation and no restyle to pick, so the choice is only among 4 versions: 2.0 CVT (140 hp, FWD), 2.0 AT (140 hp, FWD), 2.0 AT (200 hp, AWD, Turbo), and 2.4 AT (152 hp, AWD). All four are Gasoline, 4 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, multi-point injection, 95 fuel, 65 L tank, and 150 mm ground clearance. 0–100, city/highway/combined consumption, CO2, eco class, and wheel sizes are not measured on every version.
Specs compared: engines, gearbox, drive
| Version | hp | Nm | cc | Fuel | Cylinders / layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 CVT | 140 | 181 | 1998 | Gasoline | 4 Inline | No | Variable | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (140 hp) | 140 | 181 | 1998 | Gasoline | 4 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (200 hp) | 200 | 147 kW | 1998 | Gasoline | 4 Inline | Turbo | Automatic 4 | AWD |
| 2.4 AT | 152 | 209 | 2389 | Gasoline | 4 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | AWD |
Two versions share the name 2.0 AT. They are not the same car: one is 140 hp / 181 Nm / FWD / No boost; the other is 200 hp / 265 Nm / AWD / Turbo. Treat them as separate choices.
Power per litre and kg per hp
On 1998 cc, 2.0 CVT and 2.0 AT (140 hp) make 140 / 1.998 ≈ 70.1 hp per litre. 2.0 AT (200 hp) makes 200 / 1.998 ≈ 100.1 hp per litre — +30.0 hp/L, or about 43% more specific output from the same displacement. 2.4 AT on 2389 cc makes 152 / 2.389 ≈ 63.6 hp per litre, the lowest of the four.
Kerb weight per horsepower:
- 2.0 CVT and 2.0 AT (140 hp): 1440 / 140 ≈ 10.3 kg per hp
- 2.0 AT (200 hp): 1610 / 200 ≈ 8.05 kg per hp (lightest per hp)
- 2.4 AT: 1630 / 152 ≈ 10.7 kg per hp (heaviest per hp)
The turbo 2.0 AT is the only version that both raises power and improves the weight-to-power ratio. The 2.4 AT adds 391 cc versus the 2.0s but is +20 kg versus the turbo 2.0 and −48 hp versus that same 2.0 AT (200 hp).
What the extra displacement and turbo buy
2.0 CVT vs 2.0 AT (140 hp). Same engine numbers: 140 hp at 5800 rpm, 103 kW, 181 Nm at 4800, 1998 cc, compression 10, bore/stroke 86 × 86, No boost, FWD, top speed 170, kerb 1440, gross 1715. The only listed difference is the gearbox: Variable versus Automatic with 4 gears. If you want this engine and drive, pick Variable or Automatic — not a different chassis.
2.0 AT (140 hp) vs 2.0 AT (200 hp). Same 1998 cc and 86 × 86, but the turbo version adds +60 hp (+43%), +44 kW, +84 Nm (+46%), peak power 6400 instead of 5800, compression 8.5 instead of 10, Turbo instead of No, AWD instead of FWD, rear suspension Independent, leaf spring instead of Semi-independent, torsion, kerb +170 kg (1610 vs 1440), gross +170 kg (1885 vs 1715), top speed 220 vs 170 (+50). Payload stays 275 kg on both (1715−1440 and 1885−1610). The extra money, in these numbers, buys turbo, AWD, independent rear leaf springs, and 50 km/h more listed top speed, at 170 kg more kerb mass.
2.0 AT (200 hp) vs 2.4 AT. Both AWD, both Automatic 4, both Independent, spring front and Independent, leaf spring rear, both Ventilated disc / Drum, both 150 mm clearance and 65 L tank. 2.4 AT is +391 cc, No turbo, compression 9.2, bore/stroke 89 × 96, 152 hp at 5600, 209 Nm at 4400. Versus the turbo 2.0 that is −48 hp, −56 Nm, +20 kg kerb (1630 vs 1610), +30 kg gross (1915 vs 1885). Top speed on 2.4 AT is not measured; on 2.0 AT (200 hp) it is 220. The 2.4 does not buy more power than the turbo 2.0. It buys 391 cc more, peak torque 400 rpm earlier (4400 vs 4800), and 10 kg more payload (285 vs 275: 1915−1630).
2.4 AT vs the 140 hp FWD pair. Versus 2.0 CVT / 2.0 AT (140 hp): +12 hp, +28 Nm, AWD instead of FWD, +190 kg kerb (1630 vs 1440), +200 kg gross (1915 vs 1715), rear axle Independent, leaf spring instead of Semi-independent, torsion. Top speed not measured on 2.4 AT vs 170 on the 140 hp cars. You pay 190 kg for 12 hp and AWD.
Performance and mpg
0–100 is not measured on all four versions. Combined, city, and highway consumption are not measured on all four. CO2 and eco class are not measured. Do not treat missing mpg as “the R'nessa has no consumption figure in principle” — the catalogue simply does not list it.
Top speed is listed on three versions: 170 for 2.0 CVT and 2.0 AT (140 hp), 220 for 2.0 AT (200 hp). 2.4 AT top speed is not measured, so it cannot be ranked against the turbo 2.0 on that axis.
Dimensions, weight, tank
Wheel sizes are not measured on all four. Ground clearance is the same: 150 mm. Tank is the same: 65 L.
| Version | Kerb | Gross | Payload (gross−kerb) | Clearance | Tank | Wheels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 CVT | 1440 | 1715 | 275 | 150 | 65 | not measured |
| 2.0 AT (140 hp) | 1440 | 1715 | 275 | 150 | 65 | not measured |
| 2.0 AT (200 hp) | 1610 | 1885 | 275 | 150 | 65 | not measured |
| 2.4 AT | 1630 | 1915 | 285 | 150 | 65 | not measured |
FWD versions are the lightest. AWD versions add 170–190 kg. Payload is 275 kg on three versions and 285 kg on 2.4 AT only.
Front brakes are Ventilated disc and rear Drum on every version. Front suspension is Independent, spring on every version. Rear suspension splits with drive: FWD 2.0 CVT and 2.0 AT (140 hp) use Semi-independent, torsion; AWD 2.0 AT (200 hp) and 2.4 AT use Independent, leaf spring.
Which version to choose
There is only 1 generation (1997–2001), so there is no “later generation that fixed X.” The decision is engine, gearbox, and FWD vs AWD.
Choose 2.0 CVT if you want the lightest R'nessa (1440 kg), FWD, 140 hp / 181 Nm, and a Variable gearbox. Same chassis numbers as 2.0 AT (140 hp). Top speed 170. Consumption not measured.
Choose 2.0 AT (140 hp) if you want those same 140 hp / 181 Nm / FWD / 1440 kg figures with Automatic 4 instead of Variable. Nothing else in the table changes. Do not confuse this 2.0 AT with the 200 hp 2.0 AT.
Choose 2.0 AT (200 hp) if the numbers you care about are power and AWD. It is the only Turbo R'nessa here, the only 200 hp / 265 Nm / 220 top speed, and the best weight-to-power (≈8.05 kg/hp). You accept +170 kg versus the FWD 2.0s and compression 8.5 instead of 10. 0–100 and mpg remain not measured.
Choose 2.4 AT if you want AWD without turbo and a larger 2389 cc, 152 hp / 209 Nm, peak torque at 4400 rpm. It is the heaviest (1630 / 1915) and the weakest per litre (≈63.6 hp/L). It does not beat 2.0 AT (200 hp) on hp, Nm, or kg/hp. Top speed not measured.
Short ranking on the listed numbers. Most power and best kg/hp: 2.0 AT (200 hp). Lightest and tied for lowest power: 2.0 CVT and 2.0 AT (140 hp) — split only by Variable vs Automatic. AWD without turbo: 2.4 AT. If the job is “which 2.0 AT,” the answer is the 200 hp car unless you specifically need FWD and 1440 kg.