Daihatsu Coo

Daihatsu Coo: Which Version Should You Buy?

The Daihatsu Coo was produced in a single generation from May 2006 to February 2013 as a Microvan. Its range contains four front-wheel-drive versions: 1.3 MT, 1.3 AT, 1.5 MT, and 1.5 AT. Choosing between them comes down to two decisions: whether you want the 1298 cc engine with 91 hp or the 1495 cc engine with 103 hp, and whether you prefer a 5-speed Manual or a 4-speed Automatic.

The Daihatsu Coo was produced in a single generation from May 2006 to February 2013 as a Microvan. Its range contains four front-wheel-drive versions: 1.3 MT, 1.3 AT, 1.5 MT, and 1.5 AT. Choosing between them comes down to two decisions: whether you want the 1298 cc engine with 91 hp or the 1495 cc engine with 103 hp, and whether you prefer a 5-speed Manual or a 4-speed Automatic. On the available figures, 1.5 MT is the performance choice, 1.3 MT is the economy choice, and the Automatic versions prioritize transmission type despite having fewer measured performance and consumption figures.

Daihatsu Coo generations compared

There is only one Daihatsu Coo generation in the supplied data, so there is no earlier or later generation to compare. The 1 generation ran from May 2006 until February 2013, used a Microvan body, and included four versions. All four share FWD, Gasoline engines, front transverse engine placement, a 40-litre fuel tank, 150 mm of ground clearance, Euro 4 classification, independent spring front suspension, semi-independent spring rear suspension, ventilated disc front brakes, and drum rear brakes.

The meaningful comparison is therefore within the generation. The engine choice changes displacement, output, torque, acceleration, and—where measured—fuel consumption. The transmission choice changes the gearbox from a 5-speed Manual to a 4-speed Automatic and also affects acceleration.

Engine specs and version comparison

Both engines are naturally aspirated, use Distributed injection (multi-point), and have an Inline arrangement with 4 cylinders and 4 valves per cylinder. The 1298 cc engine produces 91 hp at 6000 rpm and 120 Nm at 4400 rpm. The 1495 cc engine produces 103 hp at 6000 rpm and 132 Nm at 4400 rpm.

Moving from either 1.3 version to the corresponding 1.5 version adds 197 cc, 12 hp, and 12 Nm. That is a 13.2% increase in power and a 10% increase in torque. However, calculated specific output is slightly higher for the smaller engine: about 70.1 hp per litre for 1.3 MT and 1.3 AT, compared with about 68.9 hp per litre for 1.5 MT and 1.5 AT.

The 1.5 engine also supplies additional technical detail in the data: its compression ratio is 10, and its bore and stroke are 72 × 91.8 mm. Compression ratio and bore-and-stroke measurements for the 1.3 engine are not measured.

Performance, fuel economy, and mpg data

The 1.5 MT has the quickest measured acceleration, reaching 100 km/h in 10.8 seconds. It is 0.7 seconds quicker than 1.3 MT, 0.8 seconds quicker than 1.5 AT, and 2.6 seconds quicker than 1.3 AT. Its measured top speed is 170 km/h, only 1 km/h above the 169 km/h recorded for 1.3 MT. Top speed for 1.3 AT and 1.5 AT is not measured.

Transmission makes a clear difference to acceleration. The 1.3 AT takes 1.9 seconds longer than 1.3 MT to reach 100 km/h. The difference is smaller with the larger engine: 1.5 AT takes 0.8 seconds longer than 1.5 MT.

Only the Manual versions have measured consumption. 1.3 MT uses 0.7 L/100 km less in the city, 0.4 L/100 km less on the highway, and 0.6 L/100 km less combined than 1.5 MT. Consumption for both Automatic versions is not measured, so the data does not support a fuel-economy ranking for 1.3 AT or 1.5 AT.

Dimensions, weight, ground clearance, and tank size

Exterior length, width, and height are not measured for every version. Wheel sizes are also not measured for 1.3 MT, 1.3 AT, 1.5 MT, and 1.5 AT.

The measured Manual versions differ by only 10 kg in kerb weight. Because 1.5 MT gains 12 hp while adding 10 kg, its calculated weight-to-power ratio is better: approximately 10.0 kg per hp, versus approximately 11.3 kg per hp for 1.3 MT. Kerb weight is not measured for the Automatic versions, so the same calculation cannot be made reliably for them.

All versions have a gross weight of 1600 kg. Using the measured kerb weights, the difference between gross and kerb weight is 575 kg for 1.3 MT and 565 kg for 1.5 MT.

Reliability and problems

Reliability records and model-specific problem data are not measured in the supplied information. It would therefore be unsupported to claim that one engine or gearbox is more reliable than another. The specifications only establish that all four versions use naturally aspirated Gasoline engines with Distributed injection (multi-point), while the buyer chooses between Manual and Automatic transmissions.

Which Daihatsu Coo version should you buy?

Choose 1.3 MT if measured fuel economy is the priority. Its combined consumption is 6.6 L/100 km, compared with 7.2 L/100 km for 1.5 MT. It also has the lowest measured kerb weight at 1025 kg. The trade-off is 12 hp and 12 Nm less than the 1.5 versions, while its 11.5-second acceleration time is 0.7 seconds behind 1.5 MT.

Choose 1.5 MT if performance is the priority. Its 103 hp, 132 Nm, 10.8-second 0–100 km/h time, and 170 km/h top speed are the strongest measured figures in the range. Compared with 1.3 MT, the additional 197 cc brings 12 hp and 12 Nm while increasing measured kerb weight by just 10 kg. The cost in consumption is 0.6 L/100 km combined.

Choose 1.3 AT only when the 4-speed Automatic is more important than measured acceleration or documented economy. It is the slowest version to 100 km/h at 13.4 seconds. Its top speed and all three consumption figures are not measured, so there is no numerical basis for calling it economical.

Choose 1.5 AT when you want the 4-speed Automatic with the more powerful engine. It has the same 103 hp and 132 Nm as 1.5 MT and reaches 100 km/h in 11.6 seconds. That makes it 1.8 seconds quicker than 1.3 AT, although its top speed, consumption, and kerb weight are not measured.

Overall, 1.5 MT offers the best quantified combination of power, acceleration, and weight per horsepower. 1.3 MT is the better evidence-based choice for lower consumption. Between the Automatic versions, 1.5 AT is the stronger purchase on the available numbers because it adds 12 hp and 12 Nm and cuts 1.8 seconds from the 0–100 km/h time compared with 1.3 AT.