Brilliance FRV (BS2): which version to buy
If you are choosing a Brilliance FRV (BS2) rather than reading a catalogue overview, the decision is inside a single generation (2008–2013), one body (Hatchback 5-door), and three listed versions: two named 1.5 MT (both 102 hp) and one 1.6 AT (107 hp).
If you are choosing a Brilliance FRV (BS2) rather than reading a catalogue overview, the decision is inside a single generation (2008–2013), one body (Hatchback 5-door), and three listed versions: two named 1.5 MT (both 102 hp) and one 1.6 AT (107 hp). There is no second generation to “wait for,” no restyling listed as a separate generation, and no all-wheel-drive or diesel option in this dataset. What you buy is a gasoline, FWD hatch with a 55 L tank, 1225 kg kerb weight, and 138 mm ground clearance on every row. The useful differences are 5 hp, 5 Nm, 89 cm³, gearbox type (5-speed Manual vs 4-speed Automatic), 0–100 km/h (16 s vs 15 s vs 19.2 s), and which fields are not measured.
Brilliance FRV BS2 versions at a glance (what actually differs)
All three versions share: Gasoline, 4 cylinders, Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, Distributed injection (multi-point), FWD, kerb 1225 kg, tank 55 L, clearance 138 mm, front suspension Independent, spring, rear Semi-independent, torsion, front brakes Disc. Production window for each listed row is 2008-01-01 to 2013-12-31.
| Version (exact name) | hp / kW @ rpm | Nm @ rpm | Displacement (cm³) | Fuel | Gearbox | Drive | 0–100 (s) | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 MT (102 hp, 16 s) | 102 / 75 @ 6000 | 135 @ 4400 | 1495 | not measured | Manual, 5 | FWD | 16 | 160 |
| 1.6 AT | 107 / 79 @ 6200 | 140 @ 3000 | 1584 | 95 | Automatic, 4 | FWD | 15 | not measured |
| 1.5 MT (102 hp, 19.2 s) | 102 / 75 @ 6000 | 135 @ 4400 | 1495 | not measured | Manual, 5 | FWD | 19.2 | 160 |
Engine layout is Front, transverse on the 16 s 1.5 MT and on 1.6 AT; on the 19.2 s 1.5 MT that field is not measured. Compression ratio is 9.5 on 1.6 AT only; both 1.5 MT rows list it as not measured. Rear brakes are Drum on both 1.5 MT rows and not measured on 1.6 AT. Gross weight, wheel sizes, city/highway/combined consumption, CO2, and eco class are not measured on every version.
Specs and engine: 1.5 MT vs 1.6 AT in numbers
Power. 1.6 AT has 107 hp versus 102 hp on each 1.5 MT: +5 hp, or about 4.9% more peak power. In kW that is 79 versus 75 (+4 kW). Peak power arrives at 6200 rpm on 1.6 AT versus 6000 rpm on both 1.5 MT rows.
Torque. 1.6 AT lists 140 Nm versus 135 Nm: +5 Nm. The more important gap is when that torque is quoted: 3000 rpm on 1.6 AT versus 4400 rpm on 1.5 MT. That is 1400 rpm earlier. If you care about moving from a stop or low-speed pull with an automatic, the 140 Nm @ 3000 rpm figure is the only torque peak in this catalogue that sits in the lower half of the rev range.
Displacement and specific output. 1584 cm³ versus 1495 cm³ is +89 cm³ (+6.0%). Specific power:
- 1.5 MT (both): 102 hp / 1.495 L ≈ 68.2 hp per litre
- 1.6 AT: 107 hp / 1.584 L ≈ 67.6 hp per litre
The 1.6 is not a “stronger engine per litre”; it is a slightly larger naturally aspirated Gasoline four with a similar specific output and a 5 hp advantage from capacity, not from boost (No on all three).
Weight per horsepower (same 1225 kg kerb on every row):
- each 1.5 MT: 1225 / 102 ≈ 12.01 kg per hp
- 1.6 AT: 1225 / 107 ≈ 11.45 kg per hp
1.6 AT is about 0.56 kg/hp lighter on paper — the same mass, 5 more horsepower. That is the entire weight-to-power story; no version is heavier or lighter in the data.
Fuel specified. Only 1.6 AT lists fuel 95. Both 1.5 MT rows list fuel as not measured. Do not invent octane for the manuals.
Performance: 15 s, 16 s, and 19.2 s are not the same car in use
0–100 km/h is the only performance number that splits the two identically named 1.5 MT rows.
- 1.6 AT: 15 s
- 1.5 MT (102 hp): 16 s — 1.0 s slower than 1.6 AT
- 1.5 MT (102 hp): 19.2 s — 3.2 s slower than the other 1.5 MT, 4.2 s slower than 1.6 AT
Top speed is 160 on both 1.5 MT rows and not measured on 1.6 AT. You cannot claim the automatic is faster or slower at the top; you can only say 0–100 is 1 s quicker than the 16 s manual and 4.2 s quicker than the 19.2 s manual.
mpg / fuel consumption. City, highway, and combined consumption are not measured for 1.5 MT, 1.6 AT, and the second 1.5 MT. Economy is not a reason to pick one row over another in this dataset. Tank volume is 55 L on all three, so range cannot be calculated without consumption.
Gearbox and drive: what the extra complexity of 1.6 AT buys
Drive is FWD on every version. There is no AWD FRV (BS2) here.
Transmission is the real product split:
- both 1.5 MT: Manual, 5 speeds
- 1.6 AT: Automatic, 4 speeds
You are not choosing “more gears on the auto.” The automatic has fewer ratios (4 versus 5). What it buys, in the numbers we have, is: 5 hp, 5 Nm, torque quoted 1400 rpm earlier, 1.0 s better 0–100 than the quicker 1.5 MT, specified 95 fuel, and a published compression ratio of 9.5. What it does not buy in this table: a measured top speed, measured rear brakes, or measured consumption.
If you want a pedal and five ratios, you are on 1.5 MT. If you want an automatic, there is only 1.6 AT — one automatic in the whole model.
Dimensions, weight, and clearance (they do not help you choose)
Kerb weight 1225 kg, ground clearance 138 mm, tank 55 L: identical. Gross weight not measured. Wheel sizes not measured. Suspension labels are identical. Front brakes Disc on all three. Rear Drum on both 1.5 MT; not measured on 1.6 AT. Dimensions and weight are not a tie-breaker between versions. Ground clearance 138 mm is the same whether you pick the 15 s auto or the 19.2 s manual.
Generations: there is nothing later to buy
1 generation only (start 2008-01-01, stop 2013-12-31), body Hatchback 5-door, 3 versions. No later generation in this data changed power, weight, or clearance. Comparing generations is not available: there is one generation. Any “which year” choice is still a choice among these three specification rows, not a facelift generation.
Which version to choose
Choose 1.6 AT if you want the only Automatic (4 speeds), the only 107 hp / 79 kW / 140 Nm package, the only 15 s 0–100, torque quoted at 3000 rpm, fuel listed as 95, and the lowest kg-per-hp (11.45). Accept that top speed, rear brakes, consumption, wheels, and gross weight are not measured on this row, and that specific output (67.6 hp/L) is slightly below the 1.5s.
Choose 1.5 MT (102 hp, 16 s 0–100) if you want Manual / 5, 102 hp, 135 Nm @ 4400, 1495 cm³, 160 km/h top speed, Drum rear brakes, and Front, transverse layout all filled in. Versus 1.6 AT you give up 5 hp, 5 Nm, the automatic, and 1.0 s on 0–100; you gain a measured 160 km/h and a fifth gear. Versus the other 1.5 MT you are 3.2 s quicker to 100 with the same 102 hp and the same 1225 kg — that 3.2 s is the whole reason this row is not interchangeable with the 19.2 s row.
Choose 1.5 MT (102 hp, 19.2 s 0–100) only if the listing in front of you matches this slower figure and you still want the 5-speed Manual, 160 km/h, Drum rear, 102 hp / 135 Nm / 1495 cm³ package. Engine position is not measured on this row. It is the same name and the same peak power as the 16 s 1.5 MT, but 19.2 / 16 = 1.20, i.e. 20% more time to 100 km/h. It is also 4.2 s behind 1.6 AT. There is no consumption or weight offset in the data that explains paying the same 1225 kg for a 19.2 s sprint.
Do not choose on mpg, reliability, or problems from this catalogue: consumption is not measured, and this dataset has no reliability or fault tallies. Do not choose on wheels or gross weight: both not measured. Do not invent a “better generation”: pokoleniy is 1.
Practical rule using only these numbers: if you need an automatic, 1.6 AT is the only answer. If you need a manual, take the 1.5 MT whose 0–100 is 16 s, not 19.2 s, unless the car you are actually looking at is documented as the 19.2 s specification. The 5 hp gap is small; the 3.2 s gap between the two 1.5 MT rows is not.