Saturn Sky

Saturn Sky: which version to buy and why (2006–2009)

There is only 1 generation of the Saturn Sky (2006-01-01 to 2009-12-31), body Cabrio, and four named versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 AT, 2.4 MT. The buying question is therefore not “which generation,” but which of these four. The split is two engines (1998 cm³ turbo 260 hp vs 2384 cm³ naturally aspirated 177 hp) times two gearboxes (Manual vs Automatic, both 5 speeds).

There is only 1 generation of the Saturn Sky (2006-01-01 to 2009-12-31), body Cabrio, and four named versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 AT, 2.4 MT. The buying question is therefore not “which generation,” but which of these four. The split is two engines (1998 cm³ turbo 260 hp vs 2384 cm³ naturally aspirated 177 hp) times two gearboxes (Manual vs Automatic, both 5 speeds). All four are Gasoline, RWD, 92 fuel, 52 L tank, 91 mm ground clearance. Fuel consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight, and wheel sizes are not measured on every version — those cannot decide the purchase.

Specs that actually separate the four versions

Compression: 9.2 on both 2.0 versions, 10.4 on both 2.4 versions. Bore × stroke: 86 × 86 on 2.0, 88 × 98 on 2.4. Injection on all four: Distributed injection (multi-point). Valves per cylinder: 4.

Engines: 83 hp and 128 Nm for 30 kg

2.0 MT and 2.0 AT make 260 hp from 1998 cm³ — 83 hp more than 2.4 AT / 2.4 MT (177 hp from 2384 cm³). That is 260 − 177 = 83 hp, or about 47% more peak power, from 386 cm³ less displacement.

Specific output (from the given numbers):

• 2.0 MT / 2.0 AT: 260 hp ÷ 1.998 L ≈ 130.1 hp/L
• 2.4 AT / 2.4 MT: 177 hp ÷ 2.384 L ≈ 74.2 hp/L

The turbo 2.0 therefore produces about 55.9 hp more per litre than the 2.4. Torque density:

• 2.0: 353 Nm ÷ 1.998 L ≈ 176.7 Nm/L
• 2.4: 225 Nm ÷ 2.384 L ≈ 94.4 Nm/L

Peak torque arrives at 2500 rpm on 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT, versus 4800 rpm on 2.4 AT and 2.4 MT. Peak power is at 5300 rpm on the 2.0 pair and 6600 rpm on the 2.4 pair. If the use case is mid-range pull in a Cabrio, the 2.0’s 353 Nm at 2500 rpm is the larger number and the earlier one.

Kerb weight runs the other way: 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT are 1360 kg; 2.4 AT and 2.4 MT are 1330 kg — 30 kg lighter. Weight per horsepower:

• 2.0 MT / 2.0 AT: 1360 ÷ 260 ≈ 5.23 kg/hp
• 2.4 AT / 2.4 MT: 1330 ÷ 177 ≈ 7.51 kg/hp

The heavier 2.0 still carries about 2.28 kg less per horsepower. The 30 kg penalty does not cancel the 83 hp / 128 Nm gap.

Boost and layout are not the same family with a different gearbox. 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT: Turbo, engine Front, transverse. 2.4 AT and 2.4 MT: No boost, engine Front, longitudinal. Both remain RWD Cabrio. Cylinder count and layout of the block itself are 4 Inline on all four.

Performance: 1.7 s on 0–100; top speed only on 2.4

0–100 km/h is 5.5 s for 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT, 7.2 s for 2.4 AT and 2.4 MT. Difference: 1.7 s. The data give the same 5.5 s for Manual and Automatic on the 2.0, and the same 7.2 s for both 2.4 gearboxes — so 0–100 does not separate MT from AT inside an engine.

Top speed is 198 for 2.4 AT and 2.4 MT. For 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT top speed is not measured. You cannot rank the turbo pair as “faster at the top” from this catalogue; you can only rank them on 0–100 (5.5 vs 7.2) and on power/torque.

Fuel use in city, highway, and mixed cycle is not measured for all four versions. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. MPG cannot pick a winner here.

Dimensions, tank, chassis: almost no buying lever

Ground clearance is 91 mm on 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 AT, and 2.4 MT. Fuel tank is 52 L on all four. Wheel sizes are not measured on all four. Gross vehicle weight is not measured on all four. Front and rear suspension: Independent, spring / Independent, spring. Front and rear brakes: Disc / Disc (labels as in data).

What does change with the engine: kerb 1360 kg (2.0) vs 1330 kg (2.4). What does not: body (Cabrio), generation count (1), years (2006–2009), drive (RWD), tank, clearance.

Manual vs Automatic: same engine numbers, different gearbox name

Inside the 2.0 pair, 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT share 260 hp, 191 kW, 353 Nm, 1998 cm³, Turbo, Front, transverse, 1360 kg, 5.5 s, 52 L, 91 mm. The only named difference in the table is Manual vs Automatic, both 5 gears.

Inside the 2.4 pair, 2.4 MT and 2.4 AT share 177 hp, 130 kW, 225 Nm, 2384 cm³, No boost, Front, longitudinal, 1330 kg, 7.2 s, top speed 198. Again the split is Manual vs Automatic, 5 gears.

If you already want 260 hp, choose 2.0 MT or 2.0 AT on shift preference, not on hp, Nm, or 0–100 — those three are identical in the data. If you already want 177 hp, choose 2.4 MT or 2.4 AT the same way.

Which version to choose (numbers only)

Choose 2.0 MT if the priority is maximum power and torque with a Manual 5: 260 hp, 353 Nm at 2500 rpm, 5.5 s to 100, 130.1 hp/L, 5.23 kg/hp. Accept +30 kg vs the 2.4, Turbo, Front, transverse, and not measured top speed, consumption, CO2, wheels, and gross weight.

Choose 2.0 AT for the same 260 hp / 353 Nm / 5.5 s / 1360 kg package with Automatic 5 instead of Manual. No extra hp or faster 0–100 versus 2.0 MT in this data.

Choose 2.4 MT if you want the lighter kerb (1330 kg), No turbo, higher compression (10.4 vs 9.2), a measured top speed of 198, and a Manual 5, and you accept 177 hp, 225 Nm at 4800 rpm, 7.2 s to 100, and 7.51 kg/hp.

Choose 2.4 AT for that same 177 hp / 1330 kg / 198 top speed / Front, longitudinal set with Automatic 5.

Do not choose on mpg, CO2, eco class, wheels, or gross weight — all not measured. Do not choose on generation — there is only 1 generation, 2006–2009, Cabrio, four versions, no restyling generation in the data.

Cross-checks that stay true if quoted alone: 2.0 MT is 83 hp and 128 Nm above 2.4 MT at +30 kg and −1.7 s 0–100; 2.0 AT vs 2.4 AT is the same arithmetic; 2.0 MT vs 2.0 AT is gearbox only; 2.4 MT vs 2.4 AT is gearbox only. Fuel grade is 92 on all four.