BMW 02 (E10)

BMW 02 (E10): which version to buy

If you are choosing a BMW 02 (E10) Cabrio from the single 1 generation (1966–1977), the data split the 12 listed versions into a clear ladder: the 1.6 MT at 74 hp is the slowest on paper (155 km/h top speed, 13.2 kg per hp), the 1.6 MT at 105 hp is the most power-dense naturally aspirated 1.6 (66.8 hp per litre, 11.0 s to 100 km/h), and the 2.0 MT at 170 hp with Turbo is the only version that adds…

If you are choosing a BMW 02 (E10) Cabrio from the single 1 generation (1966–1977), the data split the 12 listed versions into a clear ladder: the 1.6 MT at 74 hp is the slowest on paper (155 km/h top speed, 13.2 kg per hp), the 1.6 MT at 105 hp is the most power-dense naturally aspirated 1.6 (66.8 hp per litre, 11.0 s to 100 km/h), and the 2.0 MT at 170 hp with Turbo is the only version that adds rear Disc brakes, 240 Nm, 7.5 s to 100 km/h and 209 km/h. There is no second generation in this catalogue to compare against, so the choice is entirely inside these 12 engines and two gearboxes.

Specs: the 12 versions side by side

All 12 use Gasoline, 4 Inline cylinders, 2 valves per cylinder, Front, longitudinal placement, RWD. Boost is No except the 2.0 MT at 170 hp (Turbo). Gearbox is Manual with 4 gears except the 2.0 AT at 101 hp (Automatic, 3 gears). Fuel is 92 except the 1.6 MT at 83 hp (80).

(The 1.6 MT at 74 hp uses fuel 92, not 80 — only the 83 hp 1.6 MT is 80.)

Which 1.6 MT: five cars with one name

The catalogue lists five 1.6 MT versions. They are not interchangeable.

1.6 MT (74 hp) is the least specific output: 47.0 hp per litre (74 / 1.573). At 980 kg kerb it carries 13.2 kg per hp. Top speed is 155 km/h, the lowest measured figure in the set. 0–100 km/h is not measured. Compression is 8.0; torque is 118 Nm at 3700 rpm. If the job is the lightest-duty Cabrio with the same Independent, spring chassis and Disc / Drum brakes as most of the range, this is the floor.

1.6 MT (83 hp) is the odd one: fuel 80, peak power at 4600 rpm (1200 rpm lower than the 74 hp car), torque not measured, compression not measured, bore × stroke not measured, rear suspension not measured. Kerb weight is 940 kg — 40 kg less than the 74 hp 1.6 MT — so weight per hp is 11.3 kg/hp. Top speed is 171 km/h, 16 km/h above the 74 hp car and equal to the 2.0 MT at 101 hp. 0–100 is not measured. You are buying a lower-octane, lower-rev peak and accepting several not-measured fields.

1.6 MT (85 hp, 980 kg) and 1.6 MT (85 hp, 1030 kg) share 85 hp at 5700 rpm, 130 Nm at 3500 rpm, 1574 cc, compression 8.6, 84 × 71, Carburetor. The difference is mass and tank: 980 kg and 46 L versus 1030 kg and 52 L. The heavier car adds 50 kg (+5.1%) and 6 L of tank (+13.0%). Weight per hp rises from 11.5 to 12.1 kg/hp. Top speed is 162 km/h on the 980 kg car and not measured on the 1030 kg car. 0–100 is not measured on either. The extra 50 kg does not buy more power.

1.6 MT (105 hp) is the 1.6 that changes the arithmetic. Same 1573 cc class as the 74/83 hp cars, but 105 hp at 6000 rpm and compression 9.5. Specific output is 66.8 hp per litre — 19.8 hp/L above the 74 hp 1.6 MT and 0.5 hp/L above the injected 2.0 MT at 132 hp. Kerb 960 kg gives 9.1 kg per hp. 0–100 is 11.0 s; top speed 175 km/h. Versus the 85 hp / 980 kg 1.6 MT you gain 20 hp and 13 km/h, lose 20 kg, and finally get a measured 0–100. Torque barely moves (131 vs 130 Nm) but arrives 1000 rpm later (4500 vs 3500). This is the 1.6 to buy if the question is “fastest small engine,” not “largest tank.”

1.8 MT versus 1.6 MT: what 192 extra cc actually buy

Two 1.8 MT versions sit in the middle of the range.

1.8 MT (90 hp): 1766 cc, 90 hp at 5250 rpm, 146 Nm at 3000 rpm, 970 kg, 11.8 s to 100 km/h, 165 km/h, 46 L tank, 8.6 compression, 89 × 71.

1.8 MT (91 hp): same 1766 cc, 91 hp at 5250 rpm, 144 Nm at 3000 rpm, 1030 kg, 0–100 not measured, 160 km/h, 52 L tank, 8.6 compression, 88.9 × 71.1.

Specific output is 51.0 hp/L (90 hp) and 51.5 hp/L (91 hp) — below every 1.6 except the 74 hp car, and below every 2.0 except the 101 hp pair. What the 1.8 buys is torque at low rpm: 146 Nm at 3000 versus 130 Nm at 3500 on the 85 hp 1.6 MT, and versus 131 Nm at 4500 on the 105 hp 1.6 MT. Against the 105 hp 1.6 MT the 90 hp 1.8 MT is 15 hp down, 0.8 s slower to 100 km/h (11.8 vs 11.0), 10 km/h slower on top (165 vs 175), and 10 kg heavier — so the extra 193 cc does not beat the high-compression 1.6 on performance. It does give 15 Nm more and a 1500 rpm earlier torque peak.

The 91 hp 1.8 MT versus the 90 hp 1.8 MT is +1 hp, −2 Nm, +60 kg, +6 L tank, −5 km/h top speed. Weight per hp goes from 10.8 to 11.3 kg/hp. The 52 L tank is the same as the heavy 85 hp 1.6 MT; if range (tank size) is the filter, both 52 L cars are 1.6 MT (85 hp, 1030 kg) and 1.8 MT (91 hp).

2.0 MT ladder: 101, 120, 132, 170 hp

Four Manual 2.0 MT versions share 1991 cc, 89 × 80, Gasoline, 4 Inline, RWD. They are distinguished by power, feed, boost, and brakes.

2.0 MT (101 hp) is the lightest car in the whole catalogue at 940 kg. Specific output 50.7 hp/L; 9.3 kg per hp. 157 Nm at 3500 rpm, compression 8.5, Carburetor. Top speed 171 km/h; 0–100 not measured. Versus the 90 hp 1.8 MT you gain 11 hp, 11 Nm, lose 30 kg, and pick up 6 km/h — but you still have no measured 0–100.

2.0 MT (120 hp) keeps Carburetor, No boost, 960 kg (+20 kg vs the 101 hp 2.0 MT). Compression 9.3. 167 Nm at 3600 rpm. Specific output 60.3 hp/L; 8.0 kg per hp — the best naturally aspirated carbureted kg/hp in the set. Top speed not measured; 0–100 not measured. The step from 101 to 120 hp is +19 hp and +10 Nm for +20 kg. You cannot compare 0–100 or top speed because both are not measured on this 120 hp car.

2.0 MT (132 hp) is the first Central injection (single-point or single- point) car without Turbo. Compression 10.0, the highest in the data. 178 Nm at 4500 rpm. Kerb 1026 kg — 86 kg more than the 120 hp 2.0 MT. Specific output 66.3 hp/L; 7.8 kg per hp. 0–100 is 8.4 s; top speed 193 km/h. Versus the 105 hp 1.6 MT: +27 hp, +47 Nm, +66 kg, −2.6 s to 100 km/h, +18 km/h. Versus the 120 hp 2.0 MT: +12 hp, +11 Nm, +66 kg, and you finally get measured acceleration and a 193 km/h top speed. Rear brakes remain Drum.

2.0 MT (170 hp) is the only Turbo, the only 240 Nm, the only rear Disc, the only 7.5 s to 100 km/h, and the only 209 km/h. Compression drops to 6.9 (3.1 points below the 132 hp injected 2.0). Kerb 1060 kg — the heaviest listed. Ground clearance is not measured (every other version with a figure is 160 mm). Specific output 85.4 hp per litre; 6.2 kg per hp. Versus the 132 hp 2.0 MT: +38 hp (+28.8%), +62 Nm (+34.8%), +34 kg, −0.9 s to 100 km/h, +16 km/h. Versus the 74 hp 1.6 MT: +96 hp, +122 Nm, +80 kg, and 54 km/h more top speed. If the buying question is maximum measured performance and the only four-wheel Disc setup, this is the version. It is also the only one with Turbo hardware and the lowest compression, so it is not the same maintenance profile as the Carburetor cars.

Automatic: 2.0 AT versus 2.0 MT at the same 101 hp

The only Automatic is 2.0 AT (101 hp): same 1991 cc, 101 hp at 5500 rpm, 157 Nm at 3500 rpm, Carburetor, compression 8.5, 89 × 80 as the 2.0 MT (101 hp). What changes: 3 gears instead of 4, 995 kg instead of 940 kg (+55 kg, +5.9%), 0–100 measured at 10.4 s (the Manual 101 hp 2.0 MT has 0–100 not measured), top speed 166 km/h versus 171 km/h (−5 km/h). Weight per hp is 9.9 versus 9.3 kg/hp. Against the 90 hp 1.8 MT the Automatic is still 0.4 s quicker to 100 km/h (10.4 vs 11.8) despite 3 gears and extra mass. Against the 105 hp 1.6 MT it is 0.6 s slower (10.4 vs 11.0) and 9 km/h slower (166 vs 175) while using 35 kg more. Buy the 2.0 AT only if Automatic is the requirement; the numbers do not show a performance gain over the 105 hp 1.6 MT or the 132 hp 2.0 MT.

Performance and mpg

Measured 0–100 km/h exists on four versions only:

• 2.0 MT (170 hp): 7.5 s
• 2.0 MT (132 hp): 8.4 s
• 2.0 AT (101 hp): 10.4 s
• 1.6 MT (105 hp): 11.0 s
• 1.8 MT (90 hp): 11.8 s

Not measured: both 85 hp 1.6 MT cars, 1.6 MT (74 hp), 1.6 MT (83 hp), 2.0 MT (101 hp), 2.0 MT (120 hp), 1.8 MT (91 hp).

Measured top speeds, slowest to fastest: 155 (1.6 MT 74 hp), 160 (1.8 MT 91 hp), 162 (1.6 MT 85 hp / 980 kg), 165 (1.8 MT 90 hp), 166 (2.0 AT 101 hp), 171 (2.0 MT 101 hp and 1.6 MT 83 hp), 175 (1.6 MT 105 hp), 193 (2.0 MT 132 hp), 209 (2.0 MT 170 hp). Not measured: 2.0 MT (120 hp) and 1.6 MT (85 hp, 1030 kg).

City, highway and combined consumption are not measured on every version. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. There is no mpg figure in the data to rank economy; tank size is the only range proxy (46 L on ten versions, 52 L on the heavy 1.6 MT 85 hp and the 1.8 MT 91 hp).

Dimensions, weight, chassis

Gross weight is not measured on any version. Wheel size is not measured on any version. Ground clearance is 160 mm on eleven versions and not measured on the 2.0 MT (170 hp). Front suspension is Independent, spring on all twelve; rear Independent, spring on eleven, not measured on the 1.6 MT (83 hp). Front brakes are Disc on all twelve. Rear brakes are Drum on eleven and Disc only on the 2.0 MT (170 hp).

Kerb weight span is 940–1060 kg (120 kg, 12.8%). Lightest: 2.0 MT (101 hp) and 1.6 MT (83 hp) at 940 kg. Heaviest: 2.0 MT (170 hp) at 1060 kg. The 52 L pair both sit at 1030 kg.

Which version to choose

Want the highest measured speed and the only Turbo / rear Disc package: 2.0 MT (170 hp) — 170 hp, 240 Nm, 7.5 s, 209 km/h, 6.2 kg/hp, 85.4 hp/L. Clearance not measured.

Want injected, no Turbo, highest compression, still under 9 s: 2.0 MT (132 hp) — 132 hp, 178 Nm, 8.4 s, 193 km/h, compression 10.

Want the strongest 1.6 without stepping to 1991 cc: 1.6 MT (105 hp) — 66.8 hp/L, 11.0 s, 175 km/h, 960 kg. It beats the 1.8 MT (90 hp) on 0–100, top speed, power and kg/hp.

Want low-rpm torque without 2.0 litres: 1.8 MT (90 hp) — 146 Nm at 3000 rpm. Do not expect it to beat the 105 hp 1.6 MT on the stopwatch.

Want Automatic: only 2.0 AT (101 hp). Accept 3 gears, 995 kg, 10.4 s, 166 km/h.

Want the lightest 2.0 Carburetor: 2.0 MT (101 hp) at 940 kg. 0–100 not measured.

Want more Carburetor 2.0 power with better kg/hp but no timed figures: 2.0 MT (120 hp) — 8.0 kg/hp; top speed and 0–100 not measured.

Want 52 L tank: 1.6 MT (85 hp, 1030 kg) or 1.8 MT (91 hp). Both 1030 kg; neither has a strong performance case against the 960 kg 105 hp 1.6 MT.

Want fuel 80: only 1.6 MT (83 hp). Torque, compression, bore × stroke and rear suspension not measured.

Want the mildest 92-octane 1.6: 1.6 MT (74 hp) — 155 km/h, 13.2 kg/hp, 0–100 not measured.

There is one generation and one Cabrio body in this data, so “which generation” is not a choice. The real split is Carburetor 1.6/1.8/2.0 versus the two Central injection (single-point or single- point) 2.0 MT cars, and Manual 4 versus the single Automatic 3. Problems and reliability are not measured in this dataset; the mechanical differences that are measured are feed (Carburetor vs Central injection), boost (No vs Turbo), rear brakes (Drum vs Disc), tank (46 vs 52 L), and the 74–170 hp spread.