Dacia 1325

Dacia 1325: which version to buy — specs, engines, and the numbers that actually differ

If you are choosing a Dacia 1325 rather than reading about the model in general, the choice is narrow: one generation (1990–1996), one body (Hatchback 5-door), four carbureted Gasoline manuals, all FWD, all 5-speed Manual, all 935 kg kerb / 1360 kg gross, all a 48 L tank. There is no restyling split, no diesel, no automatic, no AWD.

If you are choosing a Dacia 1325 rather than reading about the model in general, the choice is narrow: one generation (1990–1996), one body (Hatchback 5-door), four carbureted Gasoline manuals, all FWD, all 5-speed Manual, all 935 kg kerb / 1360 kg gross, all a 48 L tank. There is no restyling split, no diesel, no automatic, no AWD. What you are buying is a power and torque step, not a different car. The four catalogue names are 1.4 MT (62 hp), 1.4 MT (63 hp), 1.6 MT (72 hp) and 1.6 MT (75 hp) — two pairs that share a name and must be split by horsepower, or the wrong modification page will open.

Which generation to buy (there is only one)

The Dacia 1325 has 1 generation: 1 generation, 1990-01-01 to 1996-12-31, Hatchback 5-door, 4 versions. Nothing in the data marks a facelift as a separate generation, so you are not choosing “early vs late generation.” You are choosing among four engines that sat in the same body, same years, same driveline.

Ground clearance is not measured. Wheel sizes are not measured. 0–100 km/h is not measured on any version. CO2 and eco class are not measured. Those blanks are the same for every car in this catalogue entry; they do not help you rank versions.

Engines and specs: four versions, two names

All four engines are Gasoline, 4 cylinders, Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Front, transverse, Carburetor, fuel 92. Gearbox is Manual, 5 speeds, drive FWD. Front brakes Disc, rear Drum. Front suspension Independent, spring; rear Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem. The table is the ranking list.

Same name, different engine: the two 1.4 MT rows share 1397 cm³, 76 × 77, compression 9, 100 Nm at 3000, and 46 kW. They are not the same tune: 62 hp peaks at 5000 rpm, 63 hp at 5250 rpm. The two 1.6 MT rows are different engines, not two stamps of one: 1557 cm³ vs 1579 cm³ (22 cm³), 77 × 83.6 vs 76 × 87, compression 9.25 vs 8.5.

Performance, mpg, and what is not measured

0–100 km/h is not measured for 1.4 MT (62 hp), 1.4 MT (63 hp), 1.6 MT (72 hp) and 1.6 MT (75 hp). Do not treat a missing sprint time as “this engine is slow” or “this engine is fast”; the catalogue did not record it.

Top speed is recorded, and it does not follow horsepower in a straight line:

• 1.4 MT (62 hp): 145 km/h
• 1.4 MT (63 hp): 142 km/h — 3 km/h slower than the 62 hp 1.4 MT, despite +1 hp
• 1.6 MT (72 hp): 150 km/h — +5 km/h vs 62 hp 1.4 MT, +8 km/h vs 63 hp 1.4 MT
• 1.6 MT (75 hp): 160 km/h — the top of the range; +10 km/h vs 72 hp 1.6 MT, +15 km/h vs 62 hp 1.4 MT, +18 km/h vs 63 hp 1.4 MT

Fuel use (city / highway / mixed, L/100 km):

• 1.4 MT (62 hp): city not measured, highway not measured, mixed not measured
• 1.4 MT (63 hp): 9 / 6.4 / 8.1
• 1.6 MT (72 hp): 9.5 / 6.3 / 8.1
• 1.6 MT (75 hp): city not measured, highway not measured, mixed not measured

On the two versions that have economy figures, mixed consumption is identical at 8.1. The 72 hp 1.6 MT uses 0.5 L/100 km more in the city (9.5 vs 9) and 0.1 L/100 km less on the highway (6.3 vs 6.4). You do not “buy mpg” by stepping from that 1.4 MT to that 1.6 MT; you buy 9 hp and 23 Nm for the same mixed number. You cannot rank the 62 hp 1.4 MT or the 75 hp 1.6 MT on fuel: those three figures are not measured.

Dimensions and weight: they do not help you choose

Kerb weight is 935 kg on every version. Gross weight is 1360 kg on every version. Payload from those two figures is 1360 − 935 = 425 kg on every version. Tank is 48 L on every version. Ground clearance is not measured. Wheel sizes are not measured. Chassis layout (independent spring front, semi-independent spring rear, disc front, drum rear) is the same in the data for all four.

Weight per horsepower, using kerb 935 kg:

• 1.4 MT (62 hp): 935 / 62 ≈ 15.08 kg/hp
• 1.4 MT (63 hp): 935 / 63 ≈ 14.84 kg/hp (about 0.24 kg/hp lighter on paper)
• 1.6 MT (72 hp): 935 / 72 ≈ 12.99 kg/hp
• 1.6 MT (75 hp): 935 / 75 ≈ 12.47 kg/hp

From the heaviest-feeling 62 hp 1.4 MT to the 75 hp 1.6 MT you drop about 2.61 kg/hp. That is the whole weight-to-power story: the body does not change; the denominator does.

Specific output (hp per litre of the stated displacement):

• 1.4 MT (62 hp): 62 / 1.397 ≈ 44.4 hp/L
• 1.4 MT (63 hp): 63 / 1.397 ≈ 45.1 hp/L
• 1.6 MT (72 hp): 72 / 1.557 ≈ 46.2 hp/L
• 1.6 MT (75 hp): 75 / 1.579 ≈ 47.5 hp/L

The 75 hp 1.6 MT is the densest; the 62 hp 1.4 MT is the least. The gap is about 3.1 hp/L, not a different architecture.

Torque per litre:

• both 1.4 MT: 100 / 1.397 ≈ 71.6 Nm/L
• 1.6 MT (72 hp): 123 / 1.557 ≈ 79.0 Nm/L
• 1.6 MT (75 hp): 120 / 1.579 ≈ 76.0 Nm/L

The 72 hp 1.6 MT is the torque-per-litre leader, not the 75 hp row.

Which version to choose

There are no prices in this dataset, so “what the extra money buys” is what the extra displacement and the extra peak figures buy: 160 cm³ from 1397 to 1557, or 182 cm³ from 1397 to 1579; 13 hp from 62 to 75 (+21%); 23 Nm from 100 to 123 (+23%); 15–18 km/h of top speed depending which 1.4 MT you start from.

Skip treating the two 1.4 MT rows as a real fork unless you need a recorded mpg figure. 1.4 MT (62 hp) vs 1.4 MT (63 hp): +1 hp, same 46 kW, same 100 Nm at 3000, same 1397 cm³, same compression 9, same 76 × 77. Peak power moves from 5000 to 5250 rpm. Top speed falls from 145 to 142 km/h. The only catalogue advantage of the 63 hp 1.4 MT is that city 9, highway 6.4 and mixed 8.1 exist; on the 62 hp 1.4 MT those three are not measured. If you need a 1.4 with economy on the page, that is the 63 hp 1.4 MT. If you rank by the recorded top speed among 1.4s, the 62 hp 1.4 MT is 3 km/h ahead.

Choose 1.6 MT (72 hp) if torque and a measured mpg set matter more than the last 3 hp. Versus either 1.4 MT, this 1.6 MT adds 160 cm³, 9–10 hp, 7 kW (53 vs 46), and 23 Nm at the same 3000 rpm. Compression is the highest in the range at 9.25. Top speed 150 km/h sits 5 km/h over the 62 hp 1.4 MT and 8 km/h over the 63 hp 1.4 MT. Versus the 63 hp 1.4 MT, mixed is the same 8.1; city is +0.5 (9.5 vs 9); highway is −0.1 (6.3 vs 6.4). Versus the 75 hp 1.6 MT, you give up 3 hp and 10 km/h of top speed, but you gain 3 Nm (123 vs 120) and you get the economy trio; on the 75 hp 1.6 MT fuel is not measured. This is the only 1.6 with mpg on the sheet.

Choose 1.6 MT (75 hp) if the ranking is peak power and top speed. It is the range maximum: 75 hp at 5500 rpm, 55 kW, 160 km/h. Versus the 72 hp 1.6 MT that is +3 hp, +2 kW, +10 km/h, and a different 1.6: 1579 cm³ not 1557, stroke 87 not 83.6, compression 8.5 not 9.25, torque 120 Nm at 3300 not 123 Nm at 3000. You do not buy more torque; you buy a higher power peak and the highest recorded speed. Fuel and 0–100 remain not measured, so you cannot claim it is thirstier or quicker to 100 from this catalogue.

Default pick from the numbers alone: 1.6 MT (72 hp). It has the highest torque (123 Nm), the best torque per litre (~79.0 Nm/L), the only 1.6 with city/highway/mixed filled in, mixed 8.1 matching the 63 hp 1.4 MT, and 12.99 kg/hp versus ~15 kg/hp on the 1.4s. The 75 hp 1.6 MT is the spec-sheet maximum if 160 km/h and 75 hp are the sort keys. The 63 hp 1.4 MT is the 1.4 to take if you want recorded mpg. The 62 hp 1.4 MT is the 1.4 with the higher of the two 1.4 top speeds (145 km/h) and nothing measured for consumption.

Reliability, common problems, and used-market condition are not measured in this dataset; they cannot be used to break the four-way tie. What the data will support is: same generation, same Hatchback 5-door, same FWD Manual 5, same 935/1360 kg, same 48 L tank — pick the engine row, and keep the version name exactly 1.4 MT or 1.6 MT with the horsepower in parentheses so the 62/63 and 72/75 pairs do not collapse into one link.