Daihatsu Trevis: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Daihatsu Trevis was produced from 2006 to 2011 as a Mini 5-doors model in a single generation. Choosing between its two versions is therefore mainly a choice of transmission and performance: 1.0 MT has a 5-speed Manual gearbox, reaches 100 km/h in 12.2 seconds, and has a top speed of 160 km/h; 1.0 AT uses a 4-speed Automatic, takes 15 seconds to reach 100 km/h, and tops out at 150 km/h.
The Daihatsu Trevis was produced from 2006 to 2011 as a Mini 5-doors model in a single generation. Choosing between its two versions is therefore mainly a choice of transmission and performance: 1.0 MT has a 5-speed Manual gearbox, reaches 100 km/h in 12.2 seconds, and has a top speed of 160 km/h; 1.0 AT uses a 4-speed Automatic, takes 15 seconds to reach 100 km/h, and tops out at 150 km/h. Both have the same 989 cc Gasoline engine, 59 hp, 91 Nm, and FWD. On the figures available, 1.0 MT is the stronger performance choice, while 1.0 AT is the option for buyers who specifically want an Automatic gearbox.
Daihatsu Trevis generations compared
There is only one Daihatsu Trevis generation in the supplied catalogue data, so there is no cross-generation mechanical or dimensional change to compare. The 1 generation ran from 2006 to 2011, used a Mini 5-doors body, and included two versions: 1.0 MT and 1.0 AT. The production dates for both versions also run from 2006 to 2011. No separate restyling is listed.
Because both alternatives belong to the same generation and share the same engine specification, the buying decision does not involve choosing between different power outputs, cylinder configurations, drive systems, or body styles. It comes down to the 5-speed Manual in 1.0 MT versus the 4-speed Automatic in 1.0 AT, together with the resulting differences in acceleration, maximum speed, and kerb weight.
Engine and specs comparison
Both Trevis versions use a front, transverse 989 cc Gasoline engine with distributed injection (multi-point). It is a naturally aspirated Inline 3-cylinder engine with 4 valves per cylinder, a compression ratio of 10, and a bore and stroke of 72 × 81 mm.
Each version produces 59 hp (43 kW) at 6000 rpm and 91 Nm at 4000 rpm. That equals approximately 59.7 hp per litre and 92.0 Nm per litre for both 1.0 MT and 1.0 AT. Neither transmission buys additional engine output: the difference is entirely in how the shared output reaches the front wheels.
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 MT | 59 hp (43 kW) | 91 Nm | 989 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.0 AT | 59 hp (43 kW) | 91 Nm | 989 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
The front suspension is Independent, spring on both versions, while the rear suspension is Semi-independent, spring. Both use Disc front brakes and Drum rear brakes. On these specifications, suspension and braking equipment provide no basis for preferring one version over the other.
Performance, acceleration, top speed, and mpg
The performance comparison clearly favors 1.0 MT. It accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 12.2 seconds, whereas 1.0 AT requires 15 seconds. The Manual is therefore 2.8 seconds quicker, completing the acceleration run in about 18.7% less time.
Maximum speed follows the same pattern. 1.0 MT reaches 160 km/h, while 1.0 AT reaches 150 km/h. The Manual version has a 10 km/h higher top speed.
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption | CO₂ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 MT | 12.2 seconds | 160 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.0 AT | 15 seconds | 150 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
City, highway, and combined fuel-consumption figures are not measured for either version. Consequently, no supported mpg advantage can be assigned to 1.0 MT or 1.0 AT. CO₂ output and environmental class are also not measured for both versions.
Dimensions, weight, tank, and wheel sizes
The supplied data does not provide exterior length, width, height, or wheelbase measurements for either Trevis version. Ground clearance and wheel sizes are also not measured. Both versions have a 36-litre fuel tank and a gross weight of 1200 kg.
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Fuel tank | Ground clearance | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 MT | 790 kg | 1200 kg | 36 litres | not measured | not measured |
| 1.0 AT | 795 kg | 1200 kg | 36 litres | not measured | not measured |
At 790 kg, 1.0 MT is 5 kg lighter than the 795 kg 1.0 AT. With both engines producing 59 hp, the Manual carries approximately 13.39 kg per horsepower, compared with approximately 13.47 kg per horsepower for the Automatic. The difference is small, but it points in the same direction as the acceleration and maximum-speed data.
Subtracting kerb weight from gross weight gives a difference of 410 kg for 1.0 MT and 405 kg for 1.0 AT. These arithmetic differences should not be treated as a formal payload rating because no dedicated payload figure is supplied.
Reliability and problems
Reliability results, repair histories, and recorded problems are not included in the supplied data. It is therefore not possible to claim that the Manual or Automatic transmission is more reliable, or that either version has particular common faults. A purchase inspection should treat the individual vehicle’s condition separately from this specifications-based comparison.
Which Daihatsu Trevis version should you buy?
Choose 1.0 MT if performance is the priority. It matches 1.0 AT for engine output, torque, displacement, fuel type, tank capacity, gross weight, suspension, brakes, and FWD, but it is 2.8 seconds quicker from 0 to 100 km/h, has a 10 km/h higher maximum speed, and weighs 5 kg less. Its 5-speed Manual also has one more forward gear than the 4-speed Automatic.
Choose 1.0 AT if an Automatic gearbox is the deciding requirement. It retains the same 59 hp, 91 Nm, 989 cc Gasoline engine and the same core chassis specification as 1.0 MT, but its measurable trade-offs are slower acceleration, a lower top speed, and a slightly higher kerb weight.
No price figures are provided, so the extra money required for either version—and what that price difference buys—cannot be calculated. Likewise, fuel economy and reliability data cannot be used to separate them because those figures are not measured. Based strictly on the available specifications, 1.0 MT offers the better numerical result, while 1.0 AT makes sense specifically for a buyer who values Automatic operation enough to accept the stated performance difference.