Daihatsu Xenia

Daihatsu Xenia: which version to buy

If you are choosing a Daihatsu Xenia from the single generation sold from 2003-01-01 to 2011-12-31, the numbers pick 1.3 MT as the strongest of the three Compact Van versions: 91 hp and 120 Nm from 1298 cm³, versus 64 hp / 94 Nm on 1.0 MT (989 cm³) and 86 hp / 118 Nm on 1.5 MT (1498 cm³). All three are Gasoline, Manual, 5 gears, AWD, with 180 mm ground clearance.

If you are choosing a Daihatsu Xenia from the single generation sold from 2003-01-01 to 2011-12-31, the numbers pick 1.3 MT as the strongest of the three Compact Van versions: 91 hp and 120 Nm from 1298 cm³, versus 64 hp / 94 Nm on 1.0 MT (989 cm³) and 86 hp / 118 Nm on 1.5 MT (1498 cm³). All three are Gasoline, Manual, 5 gears, AWD, with 180 mm ground clearance. 1.3 MT is +27 hp and +26 Nm over 1.0 MT, and still +5 hp and +2 Nm over the larger 1.5 MT. Extra displacement on 1.5 MT does not buy more power; it buys 95 fuel instead of 92, a 2-cylinder layout instead of 4, and lower output per litre. 0–100, top speed, mpg, kerb weight, gross weight, tank size and wheel sizes are not measured on any version, so this choice is an engine-and-fuel comparison, not a performance-or-weight one.

Xenia specs: one generation, three versions

The Daihatsu Xenia has 1 generation and 3 versions. There is no second generation to compare, and no restyling listed as a separate generation. Body type on that generation is Compact Van. Production window is the same for the generation and for every version: 2003-01-01 to 2011-12-31.

That means “which generation changed what” has a short answer: nothing in the data splits the run into a later generation. The buyer’s decision is only among 1.0 MT, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT.

Shared hardware that does not decide the ranking: Front, transverse engine placement; No boost; Distributed injection (multi-point); Independent, spring front and rear; Disc front brakes; Drum rear brakes; AWD; Manual gearbox with 5 gears; 180 mm ground clearance.

Engine comparison: power, displacement and cylinders

1.0 MT is the small-displacement end: 989 cm³, 3 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, compression ratio 9.5, bore × stroke 72 × 81, peak 64 hp (47 kW) at 7000 rpm and 94 Nm at 3600 rpm, fuel 92.

1.3 MT is the peak-output end: 1298 cm³, 4 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, compression ratio not measured, bore × stroke not measured, peak 91 hp (67 kW) at 6000 rpm and 120 Nm at 4400 rpm, fuel 92.

1.5 MT is the large-displacement end: 1498 cm³, 2 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, compression ratio 9.5, bore × stroke 76 × 82.6, peak 86 hp (63 kW) at 6000 rpm and 118 Nm at 4400 rpm, fuel 95.

Arithmetic on those figures:

• Displacement: 1.3 MT is +309 cm³ versus 1.0 MT (+31.2% on 989). 1.5 MT is +509 cm³ versus 1.0 MT (+51.5%) and +200 cm³ versus 1.3 MT (+15.4% on 1298).
• Power: 1.3 MT is +27 hp versus 1.0 MT (+42.2% on 64) and +5 hp versus 1.5 MT. 1.5 MT is +22 hp versus 1.0 MT (+34.4%) but −5 hp versus 1.3 MT.
• Torque: 1.3 MT is +26 Nm versus 1.0 MT (+27.7% on 94) and +2 Nm versus 1.5 MT. 1.5 MT is +24 Nm versus 1.0 MT (+25.5%) but −2 Nm versus 1.3 MT.
• Power in kW: 1.3 MT 67 kW, 1.5 MT 63 kW (−4 kW), 1.0 MT 47 kW. Gap from 1.0 MT to 1.3 MT is +20 kW; from 1.0 MT to 1.5 MT is +16 kW.
• Specific power (hp per litre, displacement ÷ 1000): 1.0 MT 64 / 0.989 ≈ 64.7 hp/l; 1.3 MT 91 / 1.298 ≈ 70.1 hp/l; 1.5 MT 86 / 1.498 ≈ 57.4 hp/l. 1.3 MT is the densest; 1.5 MT is the least dense despite the largest capacity.
• Specific torque (Nm per litre): 1.0 MT 94 / 0.989 ≈ 95.0 Nm/l; 1.3 MT 120 / 1.298 ≈ 92.4 Nm/l; 1.5 MT 118 / 1.498 ≈ 78.8 Nm/l. 1.0 MT leads on torque density; 1.5 MT trails both.
• Peak-power rpm: 1.0 MT 7000, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT 6000 (−1000 rpm). Peak-torque rpm: 1.0 MT 3600, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT 4400 (+800 rpm). The 1.0-litre version makes its smaller torque earlier; the two larger versions make more torque later and make peak horsepower 1000 rpm lower.

Cylinders as given, not inferred from “typical” layouts: 1.0 MT 3 Inline, 1.3 MT 4 Inline, 1.5 MT 2 Inline. The 1.5-litre version is the only one on 95 fuel; the other two stay on 92.

Performance, mpg and reliability data that is not measured

0–100 is not measured for 1.0 MT, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT. Top speed is not measured for 1.0 MT, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT. City, highway and combined consumption are not measured for 1.0 MT, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured.

So mpg cannot rank the three versions. A “problems” or “reliability” ranking is also not in the data: there are no failure rates, no service intervals, no recall counts. What can be said without inventing numbers is the mechanical pattern that is measured: No turbocharger on any version, the same Manual 5-speed and AWD on all three, the same Independent, spring suspension and Disc / Drum brakes, and the same 180 mm clearance. Differences that could affect how the car feels are therefore the engine figures above (hp, Nm, rpm, cylinders, displacement) and the fuel grade (92 on 1.0 MT and 1.3 MT, 95 on 1.5 MT).

Weight per horsepower is not measured: kerb weight is not measured on 1.0 MT, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT, so hp/kg and kg/hp cannot be calculated.

Dimensions, ground clearance, tank and wheels

Kerb weight is not measured for 1.0 MT, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT. Gross weight is not measured for 1.0 MT, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT. Tank size is not measured for 1.0 MT, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT. Wheel sizes are not measured for 1.0 MT, 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT.

Ground clearance is measured and identical: 180 mm on 1.0 MT, 180 mm on 1.3 MT, 180 mm on 1.5 MT. Clearance does not decide which version to buy. Body type is Compact Van on the only generation; there is no second body type in the data to trade against.

Which version to choose

There is one generation (2003-01-01–2011-12-31), so you are not choosing a later Xenia that “fixed” the first. You are choosing among three Compact Van, AWD, Manual 5-speed versions that share 180 mm clearance and No boost.

Choose 1.3 MT if the ranking is power. It is the only version at 91 hp and 120 Nm. Versus 1.0 MT that is +27 hp and +26 Nm on +309 cm³, with 4 Inline cylinders instead of 3, peak power 1000 rpm lower (6000 vs 7000) and peak torque 800 rpm higher (4400 vs 3600). Versus 1.5 MT it is still +5 hp and +2 Nm on 200 cm³ less displacement, 4 cylinders instead of 2, and 92 fuel instead of 95. Specific power is the highest of the three at about 70.1 hp/l. Compression ratio and bore × stroke for 1.3 MT are not measured.

Choose 1.0 MT if the ranking is smallest engine and 92 fuel, not peak output. It is 64 hp and 94 Nm from 989 cm³, 3 Inline cylinders, compression 9.5, 72 × 81. It trails 1.3 MT by 27 hp and 26 Nm and trails 1.5 MT by 22 hp and 24 Nm. It leads specific torque at about 95.0 Nm/l and makes that 94 Nm at 3600 rpm — the earliest torque peak of the three. It shares 92 fuel with 1.3 MT. It does not share 95 fuel with 1.5 MT.

Choose 1.5 MT only if you specifically want 1498 cm³ and 95 fuel. It is 86 hp and 118 Nm — less than 1.3 MT by 5 hp and 2 Nm despite +200 cm³, and more than 1.0 MT by 22 hp and 24 Nm. Layout is 2 Inline cylinders, compression 9.5, 76 × 82.6. Specific power is the lowest at about 57.4 hp/l. Peak rpm matches 1.3 MT (6000 hp / 4400 Nm), not 1.0 MT. The extra displacement versus 1.3 MT does not buy extra horsepower or torque in this dataset; it coincides with a different cylinder count and a higher fuel grade.

What extra money buys cannot be priced: sale prices are not in the data. What extra displacement buys can be priced in horses and newton-metres: going from 1.0 MT to 1.3 MT buys +27 hp and +26 Nm; going from 1.3 MT to 1.5 MT buys −5 hp and −2 Nm. If the catalogue later attaches a higher list price to 1.5 MT because of the 1.5-litre badge, that extra money does not buy more measured output than 1.3 MT.

1.3 MT is the version the given numbers support when the question is which Daihatsu Xenia to buy for output. 1.0 MT is the version they support when the question is smallest Gasoline engine on 92 fuel. 1.5 MT is the version they support only when 1498 cm³ and 95 fuel are the requirement, not when 91 hp or 120 Nm is.