Which version to buy: 3.8 MT vs 5.2 MT
On paper they look like two trims of the same truck. In numbers they are not. 5.2 MT makes 204 hp (150 kW) at 4400 rpm and 393 Nm at 2400 rpm from 5155 cc. 3.8 MT makes 120 hp (88 kW) at 3600 rpm and 273 Nm at 1600 rpm from 3772 cc. That is +84 hp and +120 Nm on the larger engine — 70% more peak power and about 44% more peak torque — from 1383 cc extra displacement.
On paper they look like two trims of the same truck. In numbers they are not. 5.2 MT makes 204 hp (150 kW) at 4400 rpm and 393 Nm at 2400 rpm from 5155 cc. 3.8 MT makes 120 hp (88 kW) at 3600 rpm and 273 Nm at 1600 rpm from 3772 cc. That is +84 hp and +120 Nm on the larger engine — 70% more peak power and about 44% more peak torque — from 1383 cc extra displacement.
What you do not get for that extra displacement is a different gearbox, drive, or running gear. Both versions are Manual with 4 gears, AWD, Front, longitudinal engine, Carburetor feed, compression ratio 8, Dependent, leaf spring front and rear, and Drum brakes front and rear. Fuel is listed as 76 for both. 0–100, top speed, consumption, kerb weight, gross weight, ground clearance, tank size, and wheel sizes are not measured on either version, so you cannot pick by mpg, 0–100, or payload on this catalogue’s figures.
If the job is low-rpm pulling and you want peak torque as early as the data allow, 3.8 MT peaks at 1600 rpm. 5.2 MT peaks later, at 2400 rpm, but at a much higher figure (393 Nm vs 273 Nm). If the job is more power at higher crank speed, 5.2 MT peaks 800 rpm later (4400 vs 3600) with 84 hp more.
Specs table (both versions)
| Version | hp | Nm | Displacement (cc) | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.8 MT | 120 | 273 | 3772 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Manual 4 | AWD |
| 5.2 MT | 204 | 393 | 5155 | Gasoline | 8 | V-shaped | No | Manual 4 | AWD |
Engine: power per litre and how the extra capacity is used
3.8 MT is a 6-cylinder Inline Gasoline engine, 2 valves per cylinder, No boost, Carburetor, Front, longitudinal. Bore × stroke is 82,55 x 117,47. 5.2 MT is an 8-cylinder V-shaped Gasoline engine, also 2 valves per cylinder, No boost, Carburetor, Front, longitudinal. Bore × stroke is 92.2 x 96.52. Compression is 8 on both.
Specific output from the given numbers:
- 3.8 MT: 120 hp / 3.772 L ≈ 31.8 hp/L; 273 Nm / 3.772 L ≈ 72.4 Nm/L.
- 5.2 MT: 204 hp / 5.155 L ≈ 39.6 hp/L; 393 Nm / 5.155 L ≈ 76.2 Nm/L.
The 5.2 MT is not only larger; it also makes more power per litre (about 7.8 hp/L more) and slightly more torque per litre (about 3.8 Nm/L more). In other words, the extra 1383 cc is not “empty” capacity: the 8-cylinder V-shaped unit is the denser engine on both hp/L and Nm/L in this pair.
kW tells the same story: 150 kW vs 88 kW, a gap of 62 kW. Peak power on 5.2 MT is 204 / 120 = 1.70 times the 3.8 MT. Peak torque is 393 / 273 ≈ 1.44 times. Buyers who care about peak horsepower get a larger step-up than buyers who care only about peak newton-metres — the power gap is bigger than the torque gap.
Stroke character from the given bore × stroke: 3.8 MT is the longer-stroke of the two (117,47 vs 96.52 on the listed second figure) with a smaller bore (82,55 vs 92.2). That lines up with its earlier torque peak (1600 vs 2400 rpm). 5.2 MT is the larger-bore, shorter-stroke listing and the one that makes peak power higher up the tachometer.
Generations: what changed (and what did not)
There is 1 generation only: 1 generation, Pickup, 2 versions, 1956-10-01 to 1957-08-31. Both 3.8 MT and 5.2 MT share those dates. There is no restyling generation and no later generation in the data, so there is no “buy the facelift” or “wait for the next chassis” decision. Chassis, brakes, gearbox type, gear count, drive, boost, fuel system type, compression, and fuel grade do not differ between versions.
What did change between the two trucks in this generation is the engine architecture: 6 Inline 3772 cc vs 8 V-shaped 5155 cc, and the output that follows from that. Everything else a buyer would use to separate “trims” — AWD, Manual 4, leaf springs, drums — is the same label on both cards.
Performance, mpg, and why you cannot choose on those numbers
0–100, top speed, city / highway / combined consumption, and CO₂ are not measured for 3.8 MT and not measured for 5.2 MT. Eco class is not measured. You cannot rank these versions by acceleration, top speed, or mpg from this dataset. A larger engine (5155 vs 3772 cc) and higher peak output (204 hp / 393 Nm vs 120 hp / 273 Nm) usually imply a heavier thirst, but that is not a measured figure here and is not stated as one.
The only performance-adjacent numbers that are measured are the engine peaks and the rpm at which they occur. 3.8 MT is the earlier-torque truck (273 Nm at 1600). 5.2 MT is the later-torque, higher-torque, higher-power truck (393 Nm at 2400, 204 hp at 4400). Gearbox is Manual 4 on both, so there is no automatic-vs-manual choice and no extra gear on the bigger engine.
Dimensions, weight, tank, wheels
Kerb weight, gross weight, ground clearance, fuel tank, and wheel sizes are not measured for 3.8 MT and not measured for 5.2 MT. You cannot compute kg per horsepower, payload, or which version sits higher. Both sit on Dependent, leaf spring suspension front and rear and Drum brakes front and rear — identical labels, not a reason to pick one over the other.
Body type is Pickup for the generation as a whole. There is no second body in the data.
Reliability and problems (what the numbers can and cannot say)
There are no failure-rate, recall, or durability figures in the source data. What can be said without inventing problems: both versions use Carburetor Gasoline feed, No boost, compression 8, fuel grade 76, Drum brakes, and leaf-spring Dependent axles. Those are shared, so they do not decide 3.8 MT vs 5.2 MT. The mechanical fork is cylinder count and layout (6 Inline vs 8 V-shaped) plus displacement (3772 vs 5155 cc). More cylinders and more capacity is the more complex, more powerful package; the data do not assign a reliability score to either.
Which version to choose — decision from the arithmetic
Choose 3.8 MT if you want the smaller Gasoline engine in this catalogue: 120 hp (88 kW), 273 Nm, 3772 cc, 6 Inline, torque peak at 1600 rpm, power peak at 3600 rpm. It is the lower-output, earlier-torque, lower specific-output (≈31.8 hp/L) truck. Gearbox, drive, and chassis labels match the other version, so you are not giving up AWD or a 4-speed Manual by taking the six.
Choose 5.2 MT if the point of buying this model is the power step: 204 hp (150 kW), 393 Nm, 5155 cc, 8 V-shaped, ≈39.6 hp/L. Versus 3.8 MT that is +84 hp (+70%), +120 Nm (+44%), +62 kW, and +1383 cc. You pay for that with a later torque peak (2400 vs 1600) and a later power peak (4400 vs 3600). You do not, on these cards, get a different gearbox, a different drive, measured better mpg, or a measured weight figure.
There is no third version and no second generation. If AWD Pickup with a 4-speed Manual is the requirement, both 3.8 MT and 5.2 MT meet it. The only measured split is the engine: 6 Inline 120 hp / 273 Nm versus 8 V-shaped 204 hp / 393 Nm. Pick 3.8 MT for the smaller, earlier-torque map; pick 5.2 MT for the denser, larger, higher-output map. Acceleration, top speed, consumption, tank, clearance, and both weights remain not measured on both, so they cannot break the tie.