Alpina C2: Which Version to Buy and Why
The Alpina C2 catalogue covers a single Cabrio generation produced from 1985 to 1987, so choosing a car is mainly a matter of selecting the right engine output and drivetrain. There are six listed versions: one 2.6 MT and five entries named 2.7 MT. The 2.6 MT offers 185 hp and RWD, while the 2.7 MT versions provide either 203 hp or 210 hp and are listed with RWD or AWD.
The Alpina C2 catalogue covers a single Cabrio generation produced from 1985 to 1987, so choosing a car is mainly a matter of selecting the right engine output and drivetrain. There are six listed versions: one 2.6 MT and five entries named 2.7 MT. The 2.6 MT offers 185 hp and RWD, while the 2.7 MT versions provide either 203 hp or 210 hp and are listed with RWD or AWD. All use Gasoline engines, a 5-speed Manual gearbox, independent spring suspension, and 125 mm of ground clearance. No purchase price or sale data is available, so the comparison below focuses strictly on the supplied specifications.
Alpina C2 generations: what changed?
There is only one Alpina C2 generation in the catalogue. It ran from 1985 to 1987, used the Cabrio body, and contains six listed versions. Because no second generation or restyling is present in the data, there are no generation-to-generation mechanical changes to compare. Buyers instead need to compare the different specifications recorded within this same generation.
Alpina C2 engine and specs
Every listed engine is Gasoline, naturally aspirated, and fitted with distributed injection (multi-point). All versions have 6 cylinders in an Inline layout and use 95 fuel. Their shared 5-speed Manual transmission means the meaningful differences are displacement, output, torque, engine speed, and drive type.
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Power per litre | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.6 MT | 185 hp (136 kW) at 5800 rpm | 246 Nm at 4800 rpm | 2552 cc | 72.5 hp/L | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 2.7 MT (203 hp, 230 km/h) | 203 hp (149 kW) at 6000 rpm | 265 Nm at 4800 rpm | 2693 cc | 75.4 hp/L | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 2.7 MT (203 hp, 227 km/h, RWD) | 203 hp (149 kW) at 6000 rpm | 265 Nm at 4800 rpm | 2693 cc | 75.4 hp/L | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 2.7 MT (203 hp, 227 km/h, AWD) | 203 hp (149 kW) at 6000 rpm | 265 Nm at 4800 rpm | 2693 cc | 75.4 hp/L | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| 2.7 MT (210 hp, RWD) | 210 hp (154 kW) at 5800 rpm | 267 Nm at 4500 rpm | 2693 cc | 78.0 hp/L | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
| 2.7 MT (210 hp, AWD) | 210 hp (154 kW) at 5800 rpm | 267 Nm at 4500 rpm | 2693 cc | 78.0 hp/L | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
The 2.6 MT has 2552 cc, whereas every 2.7 MT has 2693 cc, a difference of 141 cc. Moving from the 2.6 MT to a 203 hp 2.7 MT adds 18 hp and 19 Nm. Choosing a 210 hp 2.7 MT instead adds 25 hp and 21 Nm over the 2.6 MT.
Among the 2.7 MT entries, the higher-output specification produces 7 hp and 2 Nm more than the 203 hp version. Its peak power also arrives 200 rpm earlier, at 5800 rpm rather than 6000 rpm, while maximum torque arrives 300 rpm earlier, at 4500 rpm rather than 4800 rpm. Its calculated specific output is approximately 78.0 hp/L, compared with 75.4 hp/L for the 203 hp tune and 72.5 hp/L for the 2.6 MT.
Alpina C2 2.7 performance and mpg
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.6 MT | 7.1 s | 220 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.7 MT (203 hp, 230 km/h) | 6.9 s | 230 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.7 MT (203 hp, 227 km/h, RWD) | 6.9 s | 227 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.7 MT (203 hp, 227 km/h, AWD) | 6.9 s | 227 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.7 MT (210 hp, RWD) | 6.9 s | 230 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.7 MT (210 hp, AWD) | 6.9 s | 230 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
Every 2.7 MT reaches 100 km/h in 6.9 seconds, making each one 0.2 seconds quicker than the 2.6 MT. The fastest listed top speed is 230 km/h. That is 10 km/h above the 2.6 MT and 3 km/h above the 227 km/h 2.7 MT entries.
Power alone does not determine the recorded top speed: a 203 hp 2.7 MT is listed at 230 km/h, while other 203 hp examples are listed at 227 km/h. Likewise, the supplied acceleration figure is identical for the 203 hp and 210 hp 2.7 MT specifications. These figures therefore do not support claiming that the 210 hp version accelerates faster than the 203 hp version.
City, highway, and combined fuel consumption are not measured for any version. Fuel-tank capacity and CO₂ output are also not measured, so an mpg or driving-range comparison cannot be made from the available data.
Alpina C2 dimensions, weight, and chassis specs
Exterior dimensions are not measured for the listed versions. Kerb weight and gross weight are also not measured, which means weight per horsepower cannot be calculated without inventing a weight figure.
| Version group | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All 2.6 MT and 2.7 MT versions | not measured | not measured | 125 mm | not measured | not measured |
All six versions have 125 mm of ground clearance. They also share Independent, spring front and rear suspension, Ventilated disc front brakes, and Disc rear brakes. Because the suspension and braking descriptions are the same throughout the data, neither system distinguishes one version from another on paper.
Alpina C2 reliability and problems
Reliability records, recurring problems, repair frequency, and maintenance costs are not measured in the supplied data. The specifications consequently cannot establish whether the 2.6 MT, either 203 hp 2.7 MT, or either 210 hp 2.7 MT is more reliable. Anyone comparing cars for sale would need condition and service-history evidence for the individual vehicle; no such evidence or sale information is included here.
Which Alpina C2 version should you buy?
The 2.6 MT is the specification to consider when outright output is not the priority. It has 185 hp, 246 Nm, RWD, a 7.1-second 0–100 km/h time, and a 220 km/h maximum speed. It is the least powerful option, but the available data does not show that it is lighter, more economical, less expensive, or more reliable.
A 203 hp 2.7 MT is the numerical middle ground. Compared with the 2.6 MT, it gains 18 hp and 19 Nm, cuts 0.2 seconds from the 0–100 km/h time, and raises maximum speed by either 7 km/h or 10 km/h, depending on the listed entry. Buyers choosing this output must check the full specification rather than relying on the shared 2.7 MT name: the catalogue includes 203 hp examples with RWD or AWD and maximum speeds of 227 km/h or 230 km/h.
The 210 hp 2.7 MT is the strongest choice by engine output. It has 267 Nm, reaches 100 km/h in 6.9 seconds, and has a listed maximum speed of 230 km/h. Against the 203 hp 2.7 MT, the additional output is only 7 hp and 2 Nm, while the recorded acceleration is unchanged. What the higher-output specification clearly provides is the best power-per-litre result and earlier power and torque peaks.
The drivetrain decision is separate from the engine-output decision. RWD appears with 185 hp, 203 hp, and 210 hp, while AWD appears with 203 hp and 210 hp. The data records no acceleration or top-speed advantage for AWD over a directly comparable output: the 203 hp RWD and AWD entries both reach 100 km/h in 6.9 seconds and 227 km/h, while the 210 hp RWD and AWD entries both record 6.9 seconds and 230 km/h.
On the supplied numbers, the 210 hp 2.7 MT is the best choice for maximum output, torque, and specific output. The 203 hp 2.7 MT is the sensible alternative when its 7 hp and 2 Nm deficit is acceptable, because its recorded acceleration can match the 210 hp version. The 2.6 MT should be chosen for reasons outside the performance table—such as the condition of an individual car—not because the catalogue demonstrates an economy, weight, price, or reliability advantage.