Alfa Romeo 105/115: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Alfa Romeo 105/115 catalogue covers one generation of Coupe models produced from 1965 to 1977, so there is no generation-to-generation choice in the supplied data. The meaningful decision is between eight listed versions: two distinct 1.3 MT entries, 1.6 MT, 1.8 MT, 1.8 AT, two distinct 2.0 MT entries, and 2.0 AT.
The Alfa Romeo 105/115 catalogue covers one generation of Coupe models produced from 1965 to 1977, so there is no generation-to-generation choice in the supplied data. The meaningful decision is between eight listed versions: two distinct 1.3 MT entries, 1.6 MT, 1.8 MT, 1.8 AT, two distinct 2.0 MT entries, and 2.0 AT. Every version uses a naturally aspirated, carbureted Gasoline engine with 4 Inline cylinders, a Front, longitudinal engine position, and RWD. The key differences are displacement, output, transmission, recorded performance, and the amount of technical data available.
Alfa Romeo 105/115 generations compared
The sole 1 generation ran from 1965 to 1977 as a Coupe and contains eight versions. No separate restyling or additional generation is identified in the data. Consequently, searches comparing Alfa Romeo 105 vs 115 or asking about the difference between Alfa 105 and 115 cannot be resolved from this catalogue record: it treats 105/115 as one model, one generation, and one production period.
Alfa Romeo 105/115 engine and transmission specs
Because some version names occur twice, power is essential for distinguishing them. The two 1.3 MT versions produce 89 hp and 104 hp respectively, while the two 2.0 MT versions produce 130 hp and 148 hp.
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 MT (89 hp) | 89 hp / 65 kW at 6000 rpm | not measured | 1290 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 1.3 MT (104 hp) | 104 hp / 77 kW at 6000 rpm | 137 Nm at 3200 rpm | 1290 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 1.6 MT | 109 hp / 80 kW at 6000 rpm | not measured | 1600 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 2.0 MT (148 hp) | 148 hp / 109 kW at 6000 rpm | 181 Nm at 3200 rpm | 1962 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 1.8 AT | 116 hp / 87 kW; power rpm not measured | not measured | 1779 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 3-speed Automatic | RWD |
| 2.0 MT (130 hp) | 130 hp / 97 kW; power rpm not measured | not measured | 1962 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 2.0 AT | 130 hp / 97 kW; power rpm not measured | not measured | 1962 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 3-speed Automatic | RWD |
| 1.8 MT | 116 hp / 87 kW; power rpm not measured | not measured | 1779 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
The 1.3 MT with 104 hp develops 15 hp more than the other 1.3 MT, an increase of approximately 16.9%, without any increase over its 1290 cc displacement. Its specific output is approximately 80.6 hp per litre, compared with 69.0 hp per litre for the 89 hp version.
The 1.6 MT produces 109 hp from 1600 cc, or approximately 68.1 hp per litre. It gains 5 hp over the 104 hp 1.3 MT but adds 310 cc. Buyers prioritizing output per litre therefore have a stronger numerical case for the 104 hp 1.3 MT than for the 1.6 MT.
Both 1.8 versions use 1779 cc engines producing 116 hp, equivalent to approximately 65.2 hp per litre. Their defining difference is transmission: 1.8 MT has a 5-speed Manual, while 1.8 AT has a 3-speed Automatic. No acceleration or top-speed result is measured for either version, so the data cannot establish a performance advantage for one transmission.
The two 130 hp 2.0 versions also share their 1962 cc displacement and 97 kW output. The 2.0 MT has a 5-speed Manual; the 2.0 AT has a 3-speed Automatic. Only the Manual version has measured performance figures, so the automatic cannot be assumed to match them.
The 148 hp 2.0 MT is the most powerful entry. It offers 18 hp more than either 130 hp 2.0 version, a gain of approximately 13.8% at the same 1962 cc displacement. Its specific output is approximately 75.4 hp per litre, versus approximately 66.3 hp per litre for the 130 hp versions. It also records 181 Nm, which is 44 Nm more than the 137 Nm measured for the 104 hp 1.3 MT.
Alfa Romeo 105/115 performance and economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 MT (89 hp) | not measured | 175 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.3 MT (104 hp) | not measured | 170 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.6 MT | not measured | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (148 hp) | not measured | 195 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.8 AT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (130 hp) | 9 seconds | 200 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 AT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.8 MT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
The 2.0 MT with 130 hp has the strongest documented performance case: it is the only version with a measured 0–100 km/h time, at 9 seconds, and it has the highest recorded top speed, at 200 km/h. That is 5 km/h faster than the 148 hp 2.0 MT, despite having 18 hp less. The supplied figures therefore do not support assuming that the most powerful version is also the fastest.
Among the smaller engines, the 1.6 MT reaches 190 km/h. It is 15 km/h faster than the 89 hp 1.3 MT and 20 km/h faster than the 104 hp 1.3 MT in the recorded figures. The 104 hp 1.3 MT has 15 hp more than the 89 hp version but a listed top speed that is 5 km/h lower, another reason not to infer road performance from power alone.
Fuel consumption, including any mpg equivalent, is not measured for any version. CO₂ output and environmental class are also not measured throughout the range. No version can therefore be recommended as the economy choice from the supplied data.
Alfa Romeo 105/115 dimensions and weight
Exterior dimensions are not measured for any listed version. Ground clearance, gross weight, tank capacity, and wheel sizes are likewise not measured across the range.
Kerb weight is recorded for only two versions:
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheel sizes | Weight per hp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 MT (89 hp) | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.3 MT (104 hp) | 930 kg | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | approximately 8.9 kg/hp |
| 1.6 MT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (148 hp) | 1028 kg | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | approximately 6.9 kg/hp |
| 1.8 AT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (130 hp) | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 AT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.8 MT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
The 148 hp 2.0 MT weighs 98 kg more than the 104 hp 1.3 MT, but it also provides 44 additional horsepower. Its calculated weight-to-power figure is approximately 2.0 kg/hp lower. Of the two versions with measured kerb weight, the 148 hp 2.0 MT therefore has the stronger power-to-weight proposition.
Every version has Independent, spring front suspension and Disc front brakes. Dependent, spring rear suspension and Disc rear brakes are explicitly recorded for the 104 hp 1.3 MT and the 148 hp 2.0 MT. Rear suspension and rear brake specifications are not measured for the other six entries.
Which Alfa Romeo 105/115 version should you buy?
For the best documented combination of acceleration and top speed, choose the 2.0 MT with 130 hp. Its 9-second 0–100 km/h result and 200 km/h top speed are both measured, while no other version has a recorded acceleration time and none has a higher listed top speed.
For maximum output and the best calculable power-to-weight figure, choose the 2.0 MT with 148 hp. It combines 148 hp, 181 Nm, and approximately 6.9 kg/hp. Relative to the 130 hp 2.0 MT, the same 1962 cc displacement buys 18 additional horsepower, although its recorded top speed is 5 km/h lower.
For the strongest smaller-displacement output, the 1.3 MT with 104 hp stands out. It produces approximately 80.6 hp per litre, the highest calculated specific output in the catalogue, and supplies 15 hp more than the other 1.3 MT without added displacement. Its measured 170 km/h top speed is nevertheless 5 km/h below the 89 hp version, so it should be selected for engine output rather than for the highest documented speed.
The 1.6 MT is the intermediate performance choice. Its 109 hp output exceeds the 104 hp 1.3 MT by only 5 hp, but its 190 km/h top speed is 20 km/h higher in the recorded data. It also remains 39 hp below the 148 hp 2.0 MT while being only 5 km/h slower by listed top speed.
Choose between 1.8 MT and 1.8 AT primarily by gearbox preference: both have 1779 cc Gasoline engines producing 116 hp, but the Manual provides 5 speeds and the Automatic provides 3. The same logic applies to the 130 hp 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT, which share 1962 cc and 130 hp. The Manual has measured performance; the Automatic does not.
A purchase decision cannot be based on fuel economy, tank range, ground clearance, wheel size, or gross weight because those figures are not measured. Prices, availability, parts supply, problems, and reliability are also not present in the data, so no claim about what extra money buys—or which Alfa Romeo 105/115 for sale represents better value—can be supported here. On specifications alone, the 130 hp 2.0 MT is the documented speed choice, the 148 hp 2.0 MT is the output and measured power-to-weight choice, and the 104 hp 1.3 MT is the specific-output choice.