Brilliance M1 (BS6): Which Version to Buy and Why
The Brilliance M1 (BS6) choice comes down to two distinct specifications within the same Sedan generation. The original model, produced from 2004 to 2009, offers four versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 MT, and 2.4 AT. The 2009–2012 restyling adds three alternatives: 1.8 MT, 1.8 AT, and 2.0 AT.
The Brilliance M1 (BS6) choice comes down to two distinct specifications within the same Sedan generation. The original model, produced from 2004 to 2009, offers four versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.4 MT, and 2.4 AT. The 2009–2012 restyling adds three alternatives: 1.8 MT, 1.8 AT, and 2.0 AT. The clearest performance choice is a restyled 1.8 model: both versions produce 170 hp and 235 Nm, or about 94.8 hp per litre. Buyers prioritising measured economy should consider the original 2.0 MT, while the original 2.4 MT supplies a middle-ground 136 hp with the quickest measured acceleration among the pre-restyling versions.
Brilliance M1 (BS6) generations and versions
The 2004–2009 Brilliance M1 (BS6) is the original Sedan specification and has four versions. The 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT use a 1997 cm³ Gasoline engine producing 129 hp and 173 Nm. The 2.4 MT and 2.4 AT use a 2400 cm³ Gasoline engine with 136 hp and 173 Nm. Every version is FWD, but buyers can choose either Manual or Automatic transmission.
The 2009–2012 restyling remains part of the same generation and is also a Sedan. Its three versions are 1.8 MT, 1.8 AT, and 2.0 AT. The turbocharged 1793 cm³ engine in the two 1.8 versions produces 170 hp and 235 Nm, while the naturally aspirated 1997 cm³ engine in 2.0 AT produces 145 hp and 180 Nm. All three have a 6-speed gearbox and FWD.
Engine and gearbox specs
| Period | Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004–2009 | 2.0 MT | 129 hp | 173 Nm | 1997 cm³ | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2004–2009 | 2.0 AT | 129 hp | 173 Nm | 1997 cm³ | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2004–2009 | 2.4 MT | 136 hp | 173 Nm | 2400 cm³ | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2004–2009 | 2.4 AT | 136 hp | 173 Nm | 2400 cm³ | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2009–2012 restyling | 1.8 MT | 170 hp | 235 Nm | 1793 cm³ | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2009–2012 restyling | 1.8 AT | 170 hp | 235 Nm | 1793 cm³ | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | Turbo | 6-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2009–2012 restyling | 2.0 AT | 145 hp | 180 Nm | 1997 cm³ | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 6-speed Automatic | FWD |
The power-per-litre comparison strongly favours the restyled turbo engine. Both 1.8 MT and 1.8 AT develop about 94.8 hp per litre, compared with about 72.6 hp per litre for the restyled 2.0 AT. Among the original versions, 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT produce about 64.6 hp per litre, while 2.4 MT and 2.4 AT produce about 56.7 hp per litre.
Moving from an original 2.0 version to an original 2.4 version adds 403 cm³ and 7 hp but no additional peak torque: both engines are rated at 173 Nm. By contrast, the restyled 1.8 versions exceed the original 2.0 versions by 41 hp and 62 Nm despite having 204 cm³ less displacement. They also exceed the restyled 2.0 AT by 25 hp and 55 Nm.
Performance, mpg, and fuel economy
| Period | Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004–2009 | 2.0 MT | 13.8 s | 190 km/h | 11 L/100 km | 6.9 L/100 km | 7.6 L/100 km |
| 2004–2009 | 2.0 AT | 16 s | 180 km/h | 12 L/100 km | 7.8 L/100 km | 9.5 L/100 km |
| 2004–2009 | 2.4 MT | 12.5 s | 195 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2004–2009 | 2.4 AT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2009–2012 restyling | 1.8 MT | not measured | 205 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2009–2012 restyling | 1.8 AT | not measured | 210 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2009–2012 restyling | 2.0 AT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
Within the original 2.0 pair, the Manual version reaches 100 km/h 2.2 seconds sooner than the Automatic and has a top speed 10 km/h higher. It also uses 1 L/100 km less in the city, 0.9 L/100 km less on the highway, and 1.9 L/100 km less in the combined cycle. Those measured figures make 2.0 MT the more economical and quicker original 2.0 choice.
The original 2.4 MT reaches 100 km/h in 12.5 seconds, making it 1.3 seconds quicker than 2.0 MT and 3.5 seconds quicker than 2.0 AT. Its 195 km/h top speed is 5 km/h above 2.0 MT and 15 km/h above 2.0 AT. Fuel consumption for 2.4 MT was not measured, so its running economy cannot be compared numerically with the 2.0 versions.
Acceleration for both restyled 1.8 versions was not measured. Their available top-speed figures slightly favour 1.8 AT: 210 km/h versus 205 km/h for 1.8 MT, a difference of 5 km/h. Fuel consumption was not measured for either version, so the transmission choice cannot be justified by an economy figure. Acceleration, top speed, and consumption for the restyled 2.0 AT are also not measured.
Dimensions, weight, ground clearance, and tank capacity
| Period | Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004–2009 | 2.0 MT | 1420 kg | 1835 kg | 130 mm | 74 L | not measured |
| 2004–2009 | 2.0 AT | 1450 kg | 1835 kg | 130 mm | 74 L | not measured |
| 2004–2009 | 2.4 MT | 1420 kg | not measured | 130 mm | 74 L | not measured |
| 2004–2009 | 2.4 AT | not measured | not measured | 130 mm | 74 L | not measured |
| 2009–2012 restyling | 1.8 MT | 1480 kg | not measured | 130 mm | 74 L | not measured |
| 2009–2012 restyling | 1.8 AT | 1480 kg | not measured | 130 mm | 74 L | not measured |
| 2009–2012 restyling | 2.0 AT | 1445 kg | not measured | 130 mm | 74 L | not measured |
The original 2.0 MT weighs 1420 kg, giving about 11.0 kg per horsepower. The 1450 kg 2.0 AT has about 11.2 kg per horsepower. The original 2.4 MT combines 1420 kg with 136 hp for about 10.4 kg per horsepower.
Both restyled 1.8 versions weigh 1480 kg and produce 170 hp, resulting in about 8.7 kg per horsepower. The restyled 2.0 AT weighs 1445 kg and produces 145 hp, or about 10.0 kg per horsepower. Although 1.8 MT and 1.8 AT are 35 kg heavier than the restyled 2.0 AT, each has 25 hp more and the stronger weight-to-power result.
Ground clearance does not distinguish the versions: every Brilliance M1 (BS6) listed has 130 mm. Tank capacity is likewise consistent at 74 L. Wheel sizes were not measured for any version. Gross weight is 1835 kg for the original 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT; it was not measured for the other versions.
Which Brilliance M1 (BS6) version should you buy?
Choose the 2009–2012 1.8 MT if engine output, power density, and a Manual gearbox are the priorities. It combines 170 hp, 235 Nm, about 94.8 hp per litre, and about 8.7 kg per horsepower with a 6-speed Manual transmission. Its 205 km/h top speed is measured, but its acceleration and fuel consumption are not measured.
Choose the 2009–2012 1.8 AT if you want the same 170 hp and 235 Nm with a 6-speed Automatic. It matches 1.8 MT in displacement, kerb weight, power density, and weight per horsepower, while its measured top speed is 5 km/h higher at 210 km/h. With no measured acceleration or economy figures for either 1.8 version, gearbox preference is the main evidence-based distinction.
Choose the 2004–2009 2.0 MT if measured economy matters most. Its combined consumption is 7.6 L/100 km, compared with 9.5 L/100 km for 2.0 AT. It is also 30 kg lighter, accelerates to 100 km/h 2.2 seconds sooner, and has a top speed 10 km/h higher than the original 2.0 AT.
Choose the 2004–2009 2.4 MT if you want the strongest measured acceleration among the original versions. Its 12.5-second result beats 2.0 MT by 1.3 seconds, and its 195 km/h top speed is 5 km/h higher. However, its 2400 cm³ engine adds only 7 hp over the original 1997 cm³ engine and retains the same 173 Nm torque figure; fuel consumption was not measured.
The original 2.0 AT is the evidence-based choice only when an Automatic transmission is required and measured consumption is important to the comparison. Its figures are available, but it is slower and less economical than 2.0 MT. The original 2.4 AT and restyled 2.0 AT are harder to recommend on performance or economy grounds because their acceleration, top-speed, and fuel-consumption figures are not measured. Of the fully comparable choices, 1.8 MT and 1.8 AT provide the strongest output, while 2.0 MT provides the clearest measured economy case.