De Tomaso Bigua: which version to buy
The De Tomaso Bigua ran as 1 generation from 2000-01-01 to 2002-12-31, in one body type — Cabrio — and two versions: 4.6 MT and 4.6 AT. Both share the same Gasoline 8-cylinder V-shaped engine (324 hp, 425 Nm, 4601 cm³, boost No). The buying choice is not “which engine,” but which gearbox: Manual 5 versus Automatic 4, both RWD.
The De Tomaso Bigua ran as 1 generation from 2000-01-01 to 2002-12-31, in one body type — Cabrio — and two versions: 4.6 MT and 4.6 AT. Both share the same Gasoline 8-cylinder V-shaped engine (324 hp, 425 Nm, 4601 cm³, boost No). The buying choice is not “which engine,” but which gearbox: Manual 5 versus Automatic 4, both RWD. On the numbers given, 4.6 MT is the one that records a higher top speed (257 vs 250 km/h) and the only version with a measured kerb weight (1200 kg). 0–100 is the same 5.3 s on both.
Generations
1 generation (2000-01-01–2002-12-31) is the whole catalogue story: Cabrio, 2 versions, no later generation to trade against. There is no restyling split in the data. What changed between the two cars is transmission count and type, top speed, and whether kerb weight was measured — not years, body, power, or drive.
Engines and specs
Both versions use 4601 cm³, 324 hp (238 kW) at 6000 rpm, 425 Nm at 4800 rpm, 8 cylinders in a V-shaped layout, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, Distributed injection (multi-point), compression 9.8, bore × stroke 90.2 × 90, fuel 95. Engine location is not measured on both.
Specific output from the given figures: 324 hp ÷ 4.601 L = 70.4 hp per litre. Torque per litre: 425 Nm ÷ 4.601 L = 92.4 Nm per litre. Those ratios are identical for 4.6 MT and 4.6 AT because the engine figures are identical.
| Version | hp | Nm | cm³ | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Gears | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.6 MT | 324 | 425 | 4601 | Gasoline | 8 | V-shaped | No | Manual | 5 | RWD |
| 4.6 AT | 324 | 425 | 4601 | Gasoline | 8 | V-shaped | No | Automatic | 4 | RWD |
What the extra ratio in 4.6 MT buys, in catalogue terms: one more gear (5 vs 4) and a Manual instead of an Automatic. Drive does not change: both are RWD. Power does not change: 324 hp and 425 Nm on both.
Performance and economy
0–100 km/h is 5.3 s for 4.6 MT and 5.3 s for 4.6 AT — difference 0.0 s. The automatic does not lose a stated sprint figure against the manual in this dataset.
Top speed does split: 4.6 MT 257 km/h, 4.6 AT 250 km/h. That is 7 km/h, or about 2.7% less peak speed on the automatic. If the question is “which version is faster in a straight line at the top,” the answer is 4.6 MT. If the question is “which reaches 100 km/h sooner,” the data does not pick a winner.
City, highway, and combined fuel consumption are not measured for 4.6 MT and not measured for 4.6 AT. CO₂ is not measured on both. Eco class is not measured on both. Tank volume is not measured on both. There is no mpg or l/100 km number here to prefer one gearbox on economy; do not treat silence as a consumption figure.
Dimensions and weight
Ground clearance is not measured for either version. Wheel sizes are not measured for either. Tank is not measured for either.
Gross weight is 1400 kg on 4.6 MT and 1400 kg on 4.6 AT — no difference.
Kerb weight is 1200 kg on 4.6 MT and not measured on 4.6 AT. Payload on the manual, from the two given masses, is 1400 − 1200 = 200 kg. Power-to-weight on 4.6 MT is 1200 ÷ 324 = 3.70 kg per hp, or 270 hp per tonne. Those ratios cannot be written for 4.6 AT because kerb mass is not measured; using 1200 kg for the automatic would invent a number.
Front and rear suspension are the same on both: Independent, spring / Independent, spring. Front brakes: Ventilated disc on both. Rear brakes: Disc ventilated on both. Chassis layout in the data does not separate the two versions.
Which version to choose
There is one generation and two versions, so the buy decision is 4.6 MT versus 4.6 AT.
Choose 4.6 MT if the numbers that actually differ matter: Manual 5, top speed 257 km/h, and a published kerb weight of 1200 kg. It is the only version where weight-per-horsepower can be calculated (3.70 kg/hp). Same 0–100 as the automatic (5.3 s), same 324 hp, same 425 Nm, same RWD, same 1400 kg gross.
Choose 4.6 AT if the requirement is Automatic 4 with the same engine. You give up 7 km/h of top speed (250 vs 257) and you do not get a kerb-weight figure (not measured). You do not give up stated acceleration: 5.3 s is the same. You do not give up power, torque, displacement, fuel type, cylinder count, layout, boost, injection type, compression, fuel grade 95, drive, gross weight, or the Independent, spring / Ventilated disc chassis items listed.
What extra money cannot be scored here: prices are not in the data. What generation change cannot be scored: there is only 1 generation. What engine upgrade cannot be scored: both are 4.6, 324 hp, 425 Nm, 4601 cm³, Gasoline, 8, V-shaped, boost No.
Short rule from the arithmetic: if you want the higher recorded top speed and the only measured kerb weight, 4.6 MT. If you want the Automatic, 4.6 AT keeps the same 5.3 s to 100 and the same 324 hp, at 250 km/h instead of 257. Fuel use, tank, clearance, wheels, CO₂, and eco class remain not measured on both, so they cannot break the tie.