BMW 2000 C/CS

BMW 2000 C/CS: which version to buy

There is only 1 generation of the BMW 2000 C/CS (1965–1970, Coupe), and both catalogue versions share the same name: 2.0 MT. The buying choice is therefore not generation versus generation — it is 101 hp 2.0 MT versus 122 hp 2.0 MT. Same displacement (1991 cm³), same Gasoline carbureted inline 4, same Manual 4-speed, same RWD.

There is only 1 generation of the BMW 2000 C/CS (1965–1970, Coupe), and both catalogue versions share the same name: 2.0 MT. The buying choice is therefore not generation versus generation — it is 101 hp 2.0 MT versus 122 hp 2.0 MT. Same displacement (1991 cm³), same Gasoline carbureted inline 4, same Manual 4-speed, same RWD. What changes is power, measured torque, kerb weight, 0–100, and top speed.

BMW 2000 C vs CS: the two 2.0 MT versions

Both lines are listed as 2.0 MT. Distinguish them by output, as the names alone cannot:

Feed: Carburetor on both. Bore × stroke 89 × 80 on both. Compression: not measured on both. Engine position: not measured on both.

Engine: 21 hp for the same 1991 cm³

2.0 MT 122 hp versus 2.0 MT 101 hp is +21 hp and +14 kW on identical 1991 cm³. That is +20.8% power.

Specific output (hp per litre of 1991 cm³ = 1.991 L):

• 2.0 MT 101 hp: 101 ÷ 1.991 ≈ 50.7 hp/L
• 2.0 MT 122 hp: 122 ÷ 1.991 ≈ 61.3 hp/L

The stronger 2.0 MT makes about 10.6 hp more per litre. Peak power is also 100 rpm later (5600 vs 5500).

Torque is the other split: 2.0 MT 122 hp lists 167 Nm at 3500 rpm. 2.0 MT 101 hp: torque not measured. You cannot treat the 101 hp car as “having no torque”; the catalogue simply did not record it. For a buyer who wants a number on the page, only the 122 hp 2.0 MT supplies one.

Boost is No on both. Neither version is a forced-induction buy.

Weight per horsepower: the 122 hp 2.0 MT is lighter

Kerb weight:

• 2.0 MT 101 hp: 1200 kg
• 2.0 MT 122 hp: 1150 kg

The more powerful 2.0 MT is 50 kg lighter. Combined with +21 hp:

• 101 hp 2.0 MT: 1200 ÷ 101 ≈ 11.9 kg/hp
• 122 hp 2.0 MT: 1150 ÷ 122 ≈ 9.4 kg/hp

That is about 2.5 kg less mass per horsepower on the 122 hp car — a larger relative step than the 21 hp headline, because weight and power move in opposite directions.

Gross weight: not measured for both. Ground clearance: not measured. Tank: not measured. Wheels: not measured. Chassis layout that is recorded is the same: Independent, spring front and rear; front brakes Disc; rear Drum. You are not choosing a different brake or suspension architecture between these two 2.0 MT lines.

Performance and mpg: what is measured

Top speed: 177 − 167 = 10 (units as in the source). The 122 hp 2.0 MT is the only version with a 0–100 figure: 10.4. Fuel use (mpg or otherwise) is not measured on either car — there is no consumption number to prefer one 2.0 MT over the other.

Dimensions: same catalogue gaps on both

Kerb is the only mass that differs (1200 vs 1150 kg). Gross weight, clearance, tank, and wheel sizes are not measured for 2.0 MT 101 hp and 2.0 MT 122 hp alike. A “which is smaller / which fits larger wheels” decision cannot be made from this sheet.

Generations: nothing later to wait for

1 generation only: start 1965-01-01, stop 1970-12-31, body Coupe, 2 versions, both 2.0 MT. There is no second generation that adds gears, drive types, or restyles in this dataset. Buying “the last generation” and buying “this Coupe” are the same decision. The remaining choice is which 2.0 MT.

What the extra output buys (arithmetic only)

On paper the 122 hp 2.0 MT versus the 101 hp 2.0 MT buys:

1. +21 hp / +14 kW at a 100 rpm higher peak 2. 167 Nm at 3500 (versus torque not measured) 3. −50 kg kerb 4. ~2.5 kg/hp better mass-to-power 5. +10 top speed (177 vs 167) 6. a published 10.4 0–100 (versus not measured)

What it does not buy, because the fields match or are empty on both: extra displacement, a different fuel type, more cylinders, a different layout, boost, extra gears, another drive type, recorded mpg, a larger measured tank, or a different brake/suspension type.

Price is not in the data; “what the extra money buys” here means what the extra 21 hp and 50 kg buy in the measured columns — not a market quote.

Which version to choose

Choose 2.0 MT (122 hp) if the point of a 2000 C/CS Coupe is the stronger measured set: 122 hp / 89 kW, 167 Nm, 1150 kg, 10.4 to 100, 177 top speed, ~61.3 hp/L, ~9.4 kg/hp. That is the version with a complete performance line in this catalogue.

Choose 2.0 MT (101 hp) if you specifically want the milder output of the same 1991 cm³ Gasoline Inline 4, Carburetor, Manual 4, RWD Coupe: 101 hp / 75 kW at 5500, 1200 kg, 167 top speed. Accept that torque, 0–100, mpg, tank, clearance, wheels, and gross weight are not measured.

Do not choose by generation — there is only one (1965–1970). Do not choose by the name 2.0 MT alone — both versions use it; split them by 101 hp and 122 hp.

Specs snapshot for a buyer

Same on both 2.0 MT: 1991 cm³, Gasoline, 4 Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, 89 × 80, Manual 4, RWD, Independent spring front and rear, Disc front, Drum rear, production window 1965–1970, Coupe.

Different: 101 vs 122 hp, 75 vs 89 kW, 5500 vs 5600 rpm, torque not measured vs 167 Nm at 3500, 0–100 not measured vs 10.4, 167 vs 177 top speed, 1200 vs 1150 kg.

Mpg, CO₂, eco class, tank, clearance, wheels, gross weight: not measured on both — not a reason to pick either 2.0 MT.

Problems and reliability: this dataset has no failure rates, service intervals, or common-fault lists. A reliability ranking between the two 2.0 MT versions cannot be taken from these numbers. The mechanical description that is given (same layout, same gearbox type, same drive, no boost) does not separate them on durability; only output, mass, and the measured speed figures do.