Zotye Nomad

Zotye Nomad: which version to buy (2006–2008)

The Zotye Nomad was sold in one generation (January 2006–January 2008) as an SUV 5-doors with five petrol, RWD versions: 1.3 MT, 1.5 MT, 1.5 CVT, 1.6 AT, and 1.6 MT. There is no second generation and no restyling in the data, so the buying question is not “which year” but which of these five powertrains.

The Zotye Nomad was sold in one generation (January 2006–January 2008) as an SUV 5-doors with five petrol, RWD versions: 1.3 MT, 1.5 MT, 1.5 CVT, 1.6 AT, and 1.6 MT. There is no second generation and no restyling in the data, so the buying question is not “which year” but which of these five powertrains. All five share a 46 L tank, 195 mm ground clearance, Gasoline fuel specified as 95, No boost, independent spring suspension front and rear, Disc front brakes and Drum rear brakes. What changes is engine size, injection, valves, gearbox, and — for four of five versions — a kerb weight of 1130 kg.

If you only need a short answer: 1.6 MT is the strongest arithmetic pick (most horsepower and torque, best power-per-litre and lightest kg-per-hp among the versions with a measured weight). 1.6 AT is the same engine with a 4-speed Automatic. 1.5 MT is the middle manual. 1.5 CVT is that 1.5 engine with a Variable gearbox. 1.3 MT is the smallest engine; it is the only version with a measured top speed (140), but its kerb weight is not measured, so weight-based comparisons against it cannot be closed.

Generations: what actually changed (one generation only)

1 generation ran from 2006-01-01 to 2008-01-31, body SUV 5-doors, 5 versions. Nothing in the data splits that window into a facelift, a second body, or a later generation. Every version below uses the same start and stop dates. A “newer Nomad” in this catalogue is not a later generation; it is a different engine or gearbox on the same generation.

That makes generation-to-generation arithmetic empty: there is no later Nomad here with more clearance, a larger tank, or a different drive layout. All versions are RWD. The comparison is only 1.3 vs 1.5 vs 1.6, and Manual vs Variable vs Automatic.

Specs table: engine, gearbox, drive

Injection (not a column people always search, but it is the other mechanical split): 1.3 MT, 1.6 AT, and 1.6 MT use Distributed injection (multi-point). 1.5 MT and 1.5 CVT use Central injection (single-point or single- point). Compression ratio is not measured on 1.3 MT; 9.2 on both 1.5 versions; 10 on both 1.6 versions. Bore × stroke is not measured on 1.3 MT; 75.5 × 82 on 1.5 MT and 1.5 CVT; 81 × 77.5 on 1.6 AT and 1.6 MT. Engine location is not measured on every version.

Engine math: what the extra displacement buys

1.3 MT is 1298 cc and 88 hp. 1.5 MT / 1.5 CVT add 170 cc (+13.1% displacement) and 6 hp (+6.8%). Torque rises 14 Nm (108 → 122, +13.0%). Peak power and peak torque stay at the same rpm (6000 and 3000). You are not buying a higher-revving 1.5; you are buying a slightly larger 4 Inline with 3 valves per cylinder and a change from multi-point to central injection.

1.6 AT / 1.6 MT add another 129 cc over the 1.5 (1468 → 1597, +8.8%) and 19 hp (94 → 113, +20.2%). Versus 1.3 MT, the 1.6 is +299 cc (+23.0%) and +25 hp (+28.4%). Torque is 137 Nm at 5000 rpm: +15 Nm over the 1.5 (+12.3%) and +29 Nm over the 1.3 (+26.9%). Peak torque on the 1.6 is 2000 rpm higher than on the 1.3 and 1.5. The 1.6 also moves to 4 valves per cylinder (from 3) and back to Distributed injection (multi-point), with compression 10 versus 9.2 on the 1.5.

Power per litre (hp ÷ displacement in litres):

• 1.3 MT: 88 ÷ 1.298 ≈ 67.8 hp/L
• 1.5 MT and 1.5 CVT: 94 ÷ 1.468 ≈ 64.0 hp/L
• 1.6 AT and 1.6 MT: 113 ÷ 1.597 ≈ 70.8 hp/L

The 1.5 is the least specific of the three engines. The 1.6 is the most specific. The 1.3 sits in the middle on this ratio even though it is the weakest in absolute hp. If the question is “does the next engine work harder per litre?”, the step from 1.3 to 1.5 does not improve that ratio (67.8 → 64.0); the step from 1.5 to 1.6 does (64.0 → 70.8, about +10.6% specific output).

kW figures track the same ranking: 65, 69, 69, 83, 83. The 1.6 is +14 kW over the 1.5 and +18 kW over the 1.3.

Gearbox: Manual 5 vs Variable vs Automatic 4

Three of five versions are Manual with 5 gears: 1.3 MT, 1.5 MT, 1.6 MT. Those three are the clean engine ladder on the same gearbox type.

1.5 CVT is the 1.5 engine (94 hp, 122 Nm, 1468 cc) with gearbox Variable. Number of gears is not measured. Engine numbers are identical to 1.5 MT. The CVT does not buy more power, more torque, a different fuel, or a different drive. The only specified mechanical difference versus 1.5 MT is the gearbox label.

1.6 AT is the 1.6 engine (113 hp, 137 Nm, 1597 cc) with Automatic and 4 gears. Versus 1.6 MT, engine numbers match exactly. You give up one specified gear count (4 automatic vs 5 manual) and keep the same 113 hp and 137 Nm. There is no measured 0–100 or mpg figure to show what that gearbox costs in time or fuel.

There is no 1.3 automatic, no 1.3 CVT, and no 1.6 CVT in the data. Automatic is only on the strongest engine; CVT is only on the middle engine.

Performance and mpg: what is measured and what is not

0–100 is not measured on 1.3 MT, 1.5 MT, 1.5 CVT, 1.6 AT, and 1.6 MT. You cannot rank versions by acceleration from this catalogue.

Top speed is 140 on 1.3 MT only. It is not measured on 1.5 MT, 1.5 CVT, 1.6 AT, and 1.6 MT. Do not read the missing figures as “the 1.5 and 1.6 have no top speed”; they were not recorded here. The only number you can quote is 140 for 1.3 MT.

City, highway, and mixed consumption are not measured on all five versions. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. mpg searches will not get a consumption ranking from these data. Tank size does not break the tie: 46 L on every version.

Dimensions, weight, clearance

Kerb weight: not measured on 1.3 MT; 1130 kg on 1.5 MT, 1.5 CVT, 1.6 AT, and 1.6 MT. Gross weight is not measured on all five. Wheel size is not measured on all five. Ground clearance is 195 mm on all five. Tank is 46 L on all five.

Weight-to-power where kerb is known:

• 1.5 MT and 1.5 CVT: 1130 ÷ 94 ≈ 12.02 kg/hp
• 1.6 AT and 1.6 MT: 1130 ÷ 113 = 10.00 kg/hp

The 1.6 versions are 2.02 kg/hp lighter per horsepower on the same 1130 kg (about 16.8% less mass per hp). Because 1.3 MT has no kerb figure, 88 hp cannot be turned into kg/hp without inventing a mass. Do not assume the 1.3 is lighter; it is not measured.

Clearance and tank do not help you choose a version: 195 mm and 46 L are identical. Suspension and brakes are identical in the labels. Drive is RWD on all five. There is no AWD Nomad in this set.

Reliability and problems

No failure rates, service intervals, or problem lists are in the data. Reliability is not measured. Common-search headings still belong here so a missing fact is not mistaken for a clean bill of health: there is no catalogue evidence that 1.5 CVT is more or less reliable than 1.5 MT, or that the 4-speed Automatic on 1.6 AT lasts longer than the 5-speed Manual on 1.6 MT. Injection type (multi-point on 1.3 MT / 1.6 AT / 1.6 MT, central on 1.5 MT / 1.5 CVT) is specified; durability of those systems is not measured.

Which version to choose

Choose 1.6 MT if the numbers that exist are the decision: 113 hp, 137 Nm, 1597 cc, 4 valves per cylinder, compression 10, multi-point injection, Manual 5, RWD, kerb 1130 kg. It ties 1.6 AT on engine output and beats every 1.3 and 1.5 on hp, Nm, specific output (≈70.8 hp/L), and kg/hp (10.00). Versus 1.5 MT on the same gearbox type, you gain 19 hp and 15 Nm at the same 1130 kg.

Choose 1.6 AT if you want that same 113 hp / 137 Nm / 1597 cc engine and an Automatic 4. You do not gain power over 1.6 MT. You do not gain a measured 0–100 or mpg advantage; those are not measured. You lose one specified gear versus the Manual 5.

Choose 1.5 MT if you want the middle engine with a Manual 5 like the 1.3 and 1.6 manuals. You get 94 hp and 122 Nm from 1468 cc, kerb 1130 kg, compression 9.2, 3 valves per cylinder, central injection. Versus 1.3 MT you gain 6 hp and 14 Nm and 170 cc. Versus 1.6 MT you give up 19 hp and 15 Nm at the same listed weight. Specific output (≈64.0 hp/L) is the lowest of the three engines.

Choose 1.5 CVT only for the Variable gearbox on the 94 hp engine. Engine, fuel, cylinders, valves, boost, drive, tank, clearance, and kerb match 1.5 MT. Gear count is not measured. There is no measured economy figure that shows the CVT using less fuel.

Choose 1.3 MT if you want the smallest engine: 88 hp, 108 Nm, 1298 cc, Manual 5, RWD, multi-point, 3 valves per cylinder. It is the only version with a measured top speed (140). Kerb weight is not measured, so you cannot claim it is the lightest. Fuel use is not measured, so you cannot claim it is the cheapest to run. It has 25 hp and 29 Nm less than 1.6 MT.

What extra money cannot be shown to buy. Prices are not in the data. On the numbers that are: a step from 1.3 MT to 1.5 MT buys 6 hp and 14 Nm and a recorded 1130 kg kerb, not a higher top speed (1.5 top speed not measured). A step from 1.5 MT to 1.5 CVT buys a Variable gearbox and nothing else specified. A step from 1.5 MT to 1.6 MT buys 19 hp, 15 Nm, 4 valves per cylinder, compression 10 instead of 9.2, multi-point instead of central injection, and 2.02 kg/hp better mass-to-power at the same 1130 kg. A step from 1.6 MT to 1.6 AT buys Automatic 4 at equal 113 hp.

What does not differ, so it should not decide the version: body (SUV 5-doors), years (2006–2008), drive (RWD), fuel type (Gasoline 95), boost (No), tank (46 L), clearance (195 mm), front/rear suspension labels, front Disc / rear Drum brakes, cylinder count and layout (4 Inline). Those are generation constants, not version differentiators.

Bottom line in one line: with one generation and five versions, 1.6 MT wins on measured output and on kg/hp; 1.6 AT is that engine with Automatic; 1.5 MT is the middle Manual; 1.5 CVT is gearbox-only versus 1.5 MT; 1.3 MT is the smallest engine and the only one with a quoted 140 top speed, with weight and mpg not measured.