SsangYong Korando Family — Generations, Specs & Review

Korando Family specs: what actually differs

There is 1 generation and 3 versions. Production years do not split the range: every version is dated 1988-01-01–1998-01-31. Generation choice is not a lever. Version choice is.

Version	hp	kW	rpm (power)	Nm	rpm (torque)	cc	Fuel	Cylinders	Layout	Boost	Gearbox	Drive
2.2 MT (68 hp)	68	50	4000	143	2000	2238	Diesel	4	Inline	No	Manual 5	AWD
2.2 MT (71 hp)	71	52	4000	146	2200	2238	Diesel	4	Inline	No	Manual 5	AWD
2.5 MT	76	56	4500	150	2000	2498	Diesel	4	Inline	No	Manual 5	AWD

The two 2.2 MT rows share the name. Distinguish them by power: 68 hp versus 71 hp. They are not the same car with a rounding error.

Engine: 2.2 MT 68 hp vs 2.2 MT 71 hp vs 2.5 MT

Displacement is 2238 cc on both 2.2 MT versions and 2498 cc on 2.5 MT — 260 cc more, or about 12% extra swept volume.

Power per litre (hp ÷ litres):

2.2 MT 68 hp: 68 ÷ 2.238 ≈ 30.4 hp/L
2.2 MT 71 hp: 71 ÷ 2.238 ≈ 31.7 hp/L
2.5 MT 76 hp: 76 ÷ 2.498 ≈ 30.4 hp/L

The 71 hp 2.2 MT is the most specific output. The 76 hp 2.5 MT is not a denser engine; it is a larger one. Specific output of 2.5 MT matches the 68 hp 2.2 MT to one decimal place.

Torque:

2.2 MT 68 hp: 143 Nm at 2000 rpm
2.2 MT 71 hp: 146 Nm at 2200 rpm (+3 Nm, peak 200 rpm higher)
2.5 MT: 150 Nm at 2000 rpm (+7 Nm vs 68 hp, +4 Nm vs 71 hp)

Compression: 21 on both 2238 cc engines, 23 on 2.5 MT. Bore × stroke: 88 × 92 on both 2.2 MT versions, 94 × 90 on 2.5 MT (larger bore, shorter stroke). Peak power rpm: 4000 on both 2.2 MT, 4500 on 2.5 MT. Fuel system is not measured on all three. Boost is No on all three — none of these diesels is a turbo version in this dataset.

What the extra displacement buys: +8 hp and +7 Nm from the 68 hp 2.2 MT to 2.5 MT, and +5 hp and +4 Nm from the 71 hp 2.2 MT to 2.5 MT. There is no petrol, automatic, or two-wheel-drive row to compare.

Performance and mpg: 0-100, top speed, fuel consumption

0–100 km/h:

2.2 MT 68 hp: 22 s
2.2 MT 71 hp: not measured
2.5 MT: 19 s

2.5 MT is 3 s quicker to 100 km/h than the 68 hp 2.2 MT. The 71 hp 2.2 MT cannot be ranked on 0–100 because that figure is not measured.

Top speed:

2.2 MT 68 hp: 141 km/h
2.2 MT 71 hp: 135 km/h
2.5 MT: 145 km/h

The 71 hp 2.2 MT is 6 km/h slower at the top than the 68 hp 2.2 MT, despite +3 hp. That is consistent with its higher mass (see below), not with a power advantage. 2.5 MT is the fastest: +4 km/h vs 68 hp 2.2 MT, +10 km/h vs 71 hp 2.2 MT.

Fuel consumption (city, highway, combined) is not measured on all three versions. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. Anyone shopping on mpg will not find a measured winner here; the catalogue does not record L/100 km for any Korando Family version in this set.

Dimensions, weight, ground clearance

Wheel sizes are not measured on all three. Ground clearance is 200 mm on all three. Tank is 75 L on all three.

Kerb / gross weight:

2.2 MT 68 hp: 1615 kg / 2140 kg
2.2 MT 71 hp: 1690 kg / 2240 kg
2.5 MT: 1650 kg / 2140 kg

Payload (gross − kerb):

2.2 MT 68 hp: 525 kg
2.2 MT 71 hp: 550 kg
2.5 MT: 490 kg

The 71 hp 2.2 MT is the heaviest kerb (+75 kg vs 68 hp, +40 kg vs 2.5 MT) and the only one with 2240 kg gross (+100 kg vs the other two). It also has the highest payload at 550 kg. 2.5 MT has the lowest payload at 490 kg — 35 kg less than the lightest 2.2 MT, 60 kg less than the 71 hp 2.2 MT.

Weight per horsepower (kerb kg ÷ hp):

2.2 MT 68 hp: 1615 ÷ 68 ≈ 23.8 kg/hp
2.2 MT 71 hp: 1690 ÷ 71 ≈ 23.8 kg/hp
2.5 MT: 1650 ÷ 76 ≈ 21.7 kg/hp

The two 2.2 MT versions land on the same kg/hp. 2.5 MT is about 2.1 kg/hp lighter in that ratio: that is the arithmetic case for it as the least burdened engine, not a claim about unmeasured fuel use.

Rear suspension is the other chassis split:

2.2 MT 68 hp: Independent, torsion front; Dependent, leaf spring rear
2.2 MT 71 hp: Independent, torsion front; Independent, spring rear
2.5 MT: Independent, torsion front; Dependent, leaf spring rear

Front is the same on all three. Only the 71 hp 2.2 MT has Independent, spring at the rear. If the buy decision is “independent rear versus leaf spring,” that version is the only match. Brakes do not split the range: Disc front, Drum rear on all three.

Which version to choose

There is one generation, so “which generation changed what” has a short answer: nothing in this catalogue is a later generation. All three versions share years, body (SUV 5-doors), drive (AWD), gearbox (Manual 5), tank, clearance, and the No-boost Diesel layout.

Choose 2.2 MT (68 hp) if kerb mass and payload-to-weight simplicity matter more than peak power. It is the lightest (1615 kg), shares the 2140 kg gross of 2.5 MT, payload 525 kg, 0–100 22 s, top speed 141 km/h. It is 8 hp and 7 Nm below 2.5 MT and 3 hp and 3 Nm below the other 2.2 MT. Rear axle is Dependent, leaf spring. Specific output ≈ 30.4 hp/L, same band as 2.5 MT. Fuel use is not measured.

Choose 2.2 MT (71 hp) if the independent rear is the point of the purchase. It is the only Independent, spring rear. It is also the heaviest (1690 kg kerb, 2240 kg gross), the highest payload (550 kg), the slowest listed top speed (135 km/h), and the only version with 0–100 not measured. Power is +3 hp versus the other 2.2 MT and −5 hp versus 2.5 MT. Torque peak is 146 Nm at 2200 rpm — the latest torque peak of the three. Same 2238 cc, same 21 compression, same 88 × 92 as the 68 hp 2.2 MT. The extra 3 hp does not buy a higher top speed in the data; mass goes the other way.

Choose 2.5 MT if the numbers you can measure are acceleration, top speed, and kg per hp. It is 76 hp / 56 kW, 150 Nm, 2498 cc, compression 23, 94 × 90, 0–100 19 s, 145 km/h, kerb 1650 kg, gross 2140 kg, payload 490 kg. Versus 68 hp 2.2 MT: +8 hp, +7 Nm, +260 cc, −3 s to 100 km/h, +4 km/h top speed, +35 kg kerb, same 2140 kg gross, −35 kg payload. Versus 71 hp 2.2 MT: +5 hp, +4 Nm, +260 cc, +10 km/h top speed, −40 kg kerb, −100 kg gross, −60 kg payload, and a Dependent, leaf spring rear instead of Independent, spring. 0–100 versus the 71 hp 2.2 MT cannot be compared because that figure is not measured.

A buyer who wants maximum listed speed and the lowest kg/hp takes 2.5 MT. A buyer who wants the independent rear and the highest payload takes 2.2 MT 71 hp and accepts 135 km/h and unmeasured 0–100. A buyer who wants the lowest kerb mass takes 2.2 MT 68 hp and accepts 22 s to 100 km/h. None of the three has a measured mpg, CO2, eco class, wheel size, or fuel-system figure to break a tie. Prices are not in this dataset, so “extra money” here only means extra cubic centimetres, kilograms, and horsepower: 260 cc and 8 hp from the lightest 2.2 MT to 2.5 MT, or 75 kg and an independent rear from the lightest 2.2 MT to the 71 hp 2.2 MT.