GAZ-69 vs LuAZ-969: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
GAZ · 1953–1972
GAZ-69
- Power
- 40 kW54 PS
- Top speed
- 90 km/h
- Kerb mass
- -
LuAZ · 1971–1975
LuAZ-969
- Power
- 22–30 kW30–41 PS
- Top speed
- 90 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 960 kg
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- City LuAZ-969 Length: 3,390 mm vs 3,850 mm; Width: 1,610 mm vs 1,750 mm
In plain words
GAZ-69 is 460 mm longer than LuAZ-969 (3,850 mm vs 3,390 mm). GAZ-69 is the older design (from 1953); LuAZ-969 arrived in 1971. On the catalog figures, the LuAZ-969 is the pick for city. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the GAZ-69 yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
Side view to scale, all cars from the front bumper.
| GAZ-69 | LuAZ-969 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3,850 mm151.6 in | 3,390 mm133.5 in −460 mm −18.1 in −11.9% |
| Width | 1,750 mm68.9 in | 1,610 mm63.4 in −140 mm −5.5 in −8.0% |
| Height | 1,950 mm76.8 in | 1,780 mm70.1 in −170 mm −6.7 in −8.7% |
| Wheelbase | 2,300 mm90.6 in | 1,800 mm70.9 in −500 mm −19.7 in −21.7% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Yes | Yes |
Difference vs GAZ-69 (±). Garage check: a standard single garage takes a car up to about 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in) long and 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) wide (width as listed in the catalog; some makers include the mirrors). Leave about 0.6 m (2 ft) to open the doors.
Full specifications
| GAZ-69 | LuAZ-969 | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 2.0 · 40 kW (54 PS) | 1.2 · petrol |
| Production years | 1953–1972 | 1971–1975 |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | Soviet Union (USSR) | Ukraine |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 40 kW (54 PS) 54 hp Better | 22–30 kW (30–41 PS) 30–40 hp |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | 90 km/h 56 mph | 90 km/h 56 mph |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Petrol |
| Engine | 2,000 cc · 4 cyl 2.0 l | 1,200 cc · 4 cyl 1.2 l |
| Gearbox | 3-speed manual | manual |
| Drive | All-wheel drive | All-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 3,850 mm 151.6 in | 3,390 mm 133.5 in |
| Width | 1,750 mm 68.9 in | 1,610 mm 63.4 in |
| Height | 1,950 mm 76.8 in | 1,780 mm 70.1 in |
| Wheelbase | 2,300 mm 90.6 in | 1,800 mm 70.9 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | No data | 960 kg 2,116 lb |
| Fuel tank Why it matters: A larger tank means more distance between fuel stops. | No data | 34 l 9.0 gal US |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 15.0 l/100 km 15.7 mpg US |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €3,940/year estimated |
| Range on a full tank | No data | 227 km 141 mi estimated |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (4): Body, Class, Top speed, Drive.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.75/l petrol.