Austin Montego

Austin Montego: which version to buy

If you are choosing an Austin Montego rather than reading a model overview, the useful split is not by generation — the catalogue lists one generation, 1 generation, Sedan, 1984–1994 — but by engine output under the same few names. All sixteen listed rows collapse to five nameplates: 1.3 MT, 1.6 MT, and several 2.0 MT cars that must be told apart by horsepower.

If you are choosing an Austin Montego rather than reading a model overview, the useful split is not by generation — the catalogue lists one generation, 1 generation, Sedan, 1984–1994 — but by engine output under the same few names. All sixteen listed rows collapse to five nameplates: 1.3 MT, 1.6 MT, and several 2.0 MT cars that must be told apart by horsepower. Buy the 2.0 MT at 150 hp if you want the shortest 0–100 km/h time (7.3 s) and the highest top speed (203 km/h). Buy the 2.0 MT at 115 hp if you want the strongest naturally aspirated Gasoline figures with consumption actually measured. Buy the 2.0 MT at 80 hp Diesel if mixed consumption of 5.5 L/100 km matters more than speed. Buy 1.6 MT as the middle Gasoline step. Buy 1.3 MT only if kerb weight near 950 kg is the point; the 69 hp 1.3 MT is heavier, not faster.

There is no second generation to jump to. Production of 1 generation runs from 1984-01-01 to 1994-12-31. What changes inside that window is which 2.0 MT or 1.3 MT you are looking at, not a new body or a new drivetrain layout: every version that states drive is FWD, every gearbox that is stated is Manual with 5 gears.

Specs: engines by version name

Same names, different outputs. Use horsepower as the key.

Engine position, where stated, is Front, transverse. Feed: Carburetor on both 1.3 MT outputs, both 1.6 MT listings, 2.0 MT 101 hp, 2.0 MT 104 hp, and 2.0 MT 113 hp. Central injection (single-point or single- point) on 2.0 MT 115 hp and both 2.0 MT 150 hp listings. Direct injection (direct) on 2.0 MT 80 hp Diesel. Compression ratio is 9.75 on the 68 hp and 69 hp 1.3 MT, 9.8 on 1.6 MT, 9.1 on 2.0 MT 104 hp and 2.0 MT 115 hp, 17.2 on the Diesel 2.0 MT 80 hp, and not measured on 2.0 MT 101 hp, 2.0 MT 113 hp, and 2.0 MT 150 hp. Bore × stroke: 70.61 × 81.3 mm on 1.3 MT 68 hp; 70.64 × 81.28 mm on 1.3 MT 69 hp; 76.2 × 87.6 mm on 1.6 MT; 84.46 × 89 mm on 2.0 MT 104 hp, 2.0 MT 115 hp, and 2.0 MT 80 hp; 84.5 × 89 mm on 2.0 MT 150 hp; not measured on 2.0 MT 101 hp and 2.0 MT 113 hp.

Specific output (hp per litre of stated displacement): 1.3 MT 68 hp = 53.3 hp/L; 1.3 MT 69 hp = 54.1 hp/L; 1.6 MT 85 hp = 53.2 hp/L; 2.0 MT 80 hp Diesel = 40.1 hp/L; 2.0 MT 101 hp = 50.7 hp/L; 2.0 MT 104 hp = 52.1 hp/L; 2.0 MT 113 hp = 56.5 hp/L; 2.0 MT 115 hp = 57.7 hp/L; 2.0 MT 150 hp = 75.2 hp/L. The Turbo Gasoline 2.0 MT is the only row above 60 hp/L. The Diesel Turbo 2.0 MT is the lowest hp/L because 80 hp sits on 1994 cc.

The catalogue lists two identical 1.3 MT 68 hp rows and two identical 2.0 MT 150 hp rows. They do not differ in any measured field. Treat each pair as one car, not as two trims.

Performance and economy

0–100 km/h, where measured:

• 2.0 MT 150 hp: 7.3 s
• 2.0 MT 115 hp: 9.2 s (1.9 s slower than 150 hp)
• 2.0 MT 113 hp: 9.5 s (0.3 s slower than 115 hp)
• 2.0 MT 104 hp: 9.8 s (0.6 s slower than 115 hp)
• 1.6 MT 85 hp: 11.2 s (3.9 s slower than 150 hp; 2.0 s slower than 115 hp)
• 2.0 MT 80 hp Diesel: 12.7 s (5.4 s slower than 150 hp)
• 1.3 MT 68 hp and 1.3 MT 69 hp: 14.0 s (6.7 s slower than 150 hp)
• 2.0 MT 101 hp: 0–100 km/h not measured

Top speed, where measured:

• 2.0 MT 150 hp: 203 km/h
• 2.0 MT 113 hp: 186 km/h (17 km/h below 150 hp)
• 2.0 MT 115 hp: 183 km/h (20 km/h below 150 hp; 3 km/h below 113 hp)
• 2.0 MT 104 hp: 175 km/h
• 1.6 MT 85 hp: 166 km/h
• 2.0 MT 80 hp: 163 km/h
• 1.3 MT 68 hp and 69 hp: 154 km/h
• 2.0 MT 101 hp: top speed not measured

The 2.0 MT 113 hp listing is 3 km/h faster than 2.0 MT 115 hp on a 2 hp lower peak, but torque, rpm, consumption, and kerb weight for 113 hp are not measured, so that speed figure stands alone.

Fuel consumption is measured on only three versions. City / highway / mixed (L/100 km):

• 2.0 MT 80 hp Diesel: 5.8 / 3.8 / 5.5
• 1.3 MT 69 hp: 7.8 / 4.8 / 6.8
• 2.0 MT 115 hp: 10.5 / 6.2 / 8.1
• 1.3 MT 68 hp, both 1.6 MT, 2.0 MT 101 hp, 2.0 MT 104 hp, 2.0 MT 113 hp, 2.0 MT 150 hp: city, highway, and mixed not measured

On mixed figures the Diesel 2.0 MT uses 1.3 L/100 km less than 1.3 MT 69 hp and 2.6 L/100 km less than 2.0 MT 115 hp. City gap is larger: 5.8 versus 7.8 versus 10.5. The 150 hp Turbo, the car that wins every acceleration comparison, has consumption not measured — do not read that as “it uses little” or “it uses much”; it is not measured.

Fuel grade: 95 on 1.3 MT 69 hp, 2.0 MT 104 hp, and 2.0 MT 115 hp; Diesel on 2.0 MT 80 hp; not measured on 1.3 MT 68 hp, both 1.6 MT, 2.0 MT 101 hp, 2.0 MT 113 hp, and 2.0 MT 150 hp. Tank volume: not measured on every version. CO2: not measured. Eco class: not measured.

Dimensions and weight

Ground clearance is 155 mm on every version. Wheel size is not measured on every version. Body in this generation is Sedan for all of them.

Kerb weight, where measured:

• 1.3 MT 68 hp: 950 kg
• 1.6 MT 85 hp (lighter listing): 1020 kg
• 2.0 MT 115 hp: 1043 kg
• 1.6 MT 85 hp (heavier listing): 1050 kg
• 2.0 MT 104 hp: 1062 kg
• 1.3 MT 69 hp: 1075 kg
• 2.0 MT 80 hp: 1100 kg
• 2.0 MT 150 hp: 1115 kg
• 2.0 MT 101 hp and 2.0 MT 113 hp: kerb weight not measured

Gross weight, where measured: 1.3 MT 69 hp 1460 kg; both 1.6 MT 1460 kg; 2.0 MT 115 hp 1560 kg; 2.0 MT 80 hp 1560 kg; not measured on 1.3 MT 68 hp, 2.0 MT 101 / 104 / 113 / 150 hp.

Payload from those pairs: 1.3 MT 69 hp 385 kg (1460 − 1075); 1.6 MT 1020 kg listing 440 kg; 1.6 MT 1050 kg listing 410 kg; 2.0 MT 80 hp 460 kg; 2.0 MT 115 hp 517 kg. The 115 hp 2.0 MT carries the largest stated payload.

kg per hp (kerb / peak hp): 2.0 MT 150 hp 7.43 kg/hp; 2.0 MT 115 hp 9.07; 2.0 MT 104 hp 10.21; 1.6 MT 1020 kg 12.00; 1.6 MT 1050 kg 12.35; 2.0 MT 80 hp 13.75; 1.3 MT 68 hp 13.97; 1.3 MT 69 hp 15.58. The 69 hp 1.3 MT is the worst mass-to-power ratio in the table: +1 hp over the 68 hp car and +125 kg (1075 versus 950).

Chassis hardware is the same class on almost every row: Independent, spring front and rear; front Disc (label as in the data) except 2.0 MT 150 hp, which is the only version with Ventilated disc front brakes; rear Drum on all. That is the one hardware step that tracks the Turbo Gasoline 2.0 MT.

Which version to choose

There is no generation-to-generation step. The choice is which nameplate and which horsepower under 2.0 MT or 1.3 MT.

Want the fastest Austin Montego in this catalogue. 2.0 MT 150 hp (1994 cc, Gasoline, Turbo, Central injection (single-point or single- point), 224 Nm, Manual 5, FWD). It is 35 hp above 2.0 MT 115 hp, 42 Nm above that car’s 182 Nm, 1.9 s quicker to 100 km/h, and 20 km/h higher at the top. Versus 1.3 MT it is 82 hp and 6.7 s. Versus 1.6 MT it is 65 hp and 3.9 s. Kerb 1115 kg is the highest measured, still the lowest kg/hp at 7.43. Years 1985–1991 — it leaves the list three years before 1 generation ends. Fuel use, tank, CO2, eco class, fuel grade, compression, and gross weight are not measured. The two catalogue listings of this 2.0 MT 150 hp are the same numbers.

Want Gasoline performance with economy actually written down. 2.0 MT 115 hp (1994 cc, No boost, Central injection (single-point or single- point), 182 Nm at 2800 rpm, 9.2 s, 183 km/h, 10.5 / 6.2 / 8.1 L/100 km, 95, kerb 1043 kg, gross 1560 kg). It is the lightest measured 2.0 MT Gasoline with a full consumption set. Versus 2.0 MT 104 hp (1998 cc, Carburetor): +11 hp, +18 Nm, 0.6 s quicker, +8 km/h, and mixed consumption for 104 hp is not measured. Versus 2.0 MT 113 hp: +2 hp on paper, but 113 hp has Nm, consumption, and weight not measured, so 115 hp is the version you can compare on a full sheet. Versus 2.0 MT 101 hp: +14 hp; 101 hp has almost every dynamic and mass figure not measured, so it is the weakest buying document among the Gasoline 2.0 MT rows.

Want the lowest measured fuel use. 2.0 MT 80 hp Diesel (1994 cc, Turbo, Direct injection (direct), 158 Nm at 2500 rpm — the lowest rpm for peak torque in the file). Mixed 5.5 L/100 km is 32% below 2.0 MT 115 hp’s 8.1 and 19% below 1.3 MT 69 hp’s 6.8. 0–100 km/h 12.7 s is 5.4 s behind the 150 hp 2.0 MT and 1.5 s behind 1.6 MT. Top speed 163 km/h sits 3 km/h under 1.6 MT and 40 km/h under 150 hp. Specific output 40.1 hp/L is the lowest. Years 1988–1994 — it is the late-run economy pick inside the same generation, not a new generation. Gross 1560 kg matches 2.0 MT 115 hp; kerb 1100 kg is 57 kg above that 115 hp car.

Want a step up from 1.3 without a 2.0. 1.6 MT 85 hp (1598 cc, Carburetor, 132 Nm, 11.2 s, 166 km/h). Versus 1.3 MT 69 hp: +16 hp, +30 Nm, 2.8 s quicker, +12 km/h. Versus 2.0 MT 115 hp: −30 hp, −50 Nm, 2.0 s slower, −17 km/h. Two listings differ only in kerb: 1020 kg versus 1050 kg (30 kg). Gross is 1460 kg on both, so payload is 440 kg or 410 kg. Consumption for 1.6 MT is not measured.

Want the lightest car. 1.3 MT 68 hp, 950 kg, 14.0 s, 154 km/h, 102 Nm, Carburetor, listed 1984–1989. Do not pick 1.3 MT 69 hp expecting a meaningful upgrade: +1 hp, same 102 Nm, same 14.0 s, same 154 km/h, but 1075 kg (+125 kg) and the worst kg/hp (15.58). What 69 hp does add is a measured consumption set (7.8 / 4.8 / 6.8), fuel 95, gross 1460 kg, and a listing that runs to 1994. If you need those fields, take 69 hp; if you need mass, take 68 hp.

What “moving up” buys in arithmetic, not price (prices are not in the data):

• 1.3 MT 68 hp → 1.6 MT 85 hp: +17 hp, +30 Nm, −2.8 s to 100 km/h, +12 km/h top speed, +70 kg kerb on the 1020 kg 1.6 MT.
• 1.6 MT 85 hp → 2.0 MT 115 hp: +30 hp, +50 Nm, −2.0 s, +17 km/h, mixed economy then becomes 8.1 L/100 km (1.6 mixed not measured).
• 2.0 MT 115 hp → 2.0 MT 150 hp: +35 hp, +42 Nm, −1.9 s, +20 km/h, +72 kg, front brakes change from Disc to Ventilated disc; mixed economy of 150 hp not measured.
• 2.0 MT 115 hp → 2.0 MT 80 hp Diesel: −35 hp, −24 Nm, +3.5 s to 100 km/h, −20 km/h, −2.6 L/100 km mixed, +57 kg.

Problems and reliability are not in the data. What is in the data is that every version shares FWD, Manual 5, Independent, spring suspension, 155 mm clearance, and Drum rear brakes. Differentiation is engine output, boost, injection type, and whether 0–100, top speed, consumption, and weight were measured. Prefer a version whose sheet is complete: 1.3 MT 69 hp, 2.0 MT 115 hp, and 2.0 MT 80 hp. Treat 2.0 MT 101 hp and 2.0 MT 113 hp as incomplete for a buying decision even though they share the 2.0 MT name.