Fiat Argenta

Fiat Argenta: which version to buy and why

The Fiat Argenta is a one-generation Sedan (1981–1985) with seven versions, all Manual, 5-speed, FWD. There is no second generation to “step into,” so the buy decision is entirely among those seven: two 1.6 MT gasoline cars (90 hp and 98 hp), three 2.0 MT gasoline cars (113, 122 and 135 hp), and two 2.5 MT diesels (72 hp naturally aspirated and 90 hp Turbo).

The Fiat Argenta is a one-generation Sedan (1981–1985) with seven versions, all Manual, 5-speed, FWD. There is no second generation to “step into,” so the buy decision is entirely among those seven: two 1.6 MT gasoline cars (90 hp and 98 hp), three 2.0 MT gasoline cars (113, 122 and 135 hp), and two 2.5 MT diesels (72 hp naturally aspirated and 90 hp Turbo). Every version listed here uses the exact catalogue name; same-name cars are split by power.

Fiat Argenta specs: the seven versions side by side

Valves per cylinder: 2 on 1.6 MT (90 hp) and 2.0 MT (113 hp); not measured on the other five. Fuel system: Distributed injection (multi-point) on both 1.6 MT cars, on 2.0 MT (113 hp) and 2.0 MT (135 hp); not measured on 2.0 MT (122 hp) and both 2.5 MT diesels. Front brakes are Disc and front suspension Independent, spring on all seven. Rear brakes, rear suspension, engine position, compression ratio, bore and stroke, tank, CO2, eco class and wheels: not measured on every version.

Generations: what actually changed (and what did not)

There is 1 generation (kluch 1559), Sedan, 1981-01-01 to 1985-12-31, seven versions. Version date stamps run 1978-01-01 to 1986-12-31 — wider than the generation window — but they do not split the car into a restyle generation. Ground clearance is 125 on all seven. Drive, gearbox type and gear count do not change. Body type does not change. The buyer is not choosing a later Argenta; the buyer is choosing displacement, gasoline vs Diesel, and, inside each pair/trio, a power step.

Engine: power per litre and what the extra displacement buys

1.6 MT (90 hp): 90 ÷ 1.585 ≈ 56.8 hp/L. 1.6 MT (98 hp): 98 ÷ 1.585 ≈ 61.8 hp/L — 5.0 hp/L more from the same 1585, an 8 hp / 8.9% step.

2.0 MT (113 hp): 113 ÷ 1.995 ≈ 56.6 hp/L — almost the same specific output as the 90 hp 1.6, so the 410 extra cubic centimetres mainly add absolute power (+23 hp vs 1.6 MT 90 hp, +15 hp vs 1.6 MT 98 hp), not a denser engine.

2.0 MT (122 hp): 122 ÷ 1.995 ≈ 61.2 hp/L — matches the denser 1.6 (98 hp) and adds 24 hp over that 1.6.

2.0 MT (135 hp): 135 ÷ 1.995 ≈ 67.7 hp/L — the densest gasoline unit here, 11.1 hp/L above the 113 hp 2.0 and 10.9 hp/L above the 90 hp 1.6.

2.5 MT (72 hp): 72 ÷ 2.445 ≈ 29.4 hp/L. 2.5 MT (90 hp Turbo): 90 ÷ 2.496 ≈ 36.1 hp/L. Turbo is the only boost in the catalogue; it adds 18 hp (+25%) and 0.051 L over the NA diesel, and lifts specific output by 6.7 hp/L. Even the Turbo diesel stays far below every gasoline 1.6 and 2.0 on hp/L.

Peak spread: 2.0 MT (135 hp) makes 63 hp more than 2.5 MT (72 hp) — 87.5% more power — from 450 fewer cubic centimetres. Gasoline vs Diesel is the large fork; 1.6 vs 2.0 is the second; the 113/122/135 split is the third.

Nm is measured only on 1.6 MT (90 hp): 122 Nm at 4250 rpm. For the other six, torque is not measured — do not infer a “torquey diesel” from a blank cell.

Weight per horsepower: which version is the lightest to drive on paper

Kerb weights: 1.6 MT 90 hp 1120; 1.6 MT 98 hp 1140 (+20); all three 2.0 MT 1200; both 2.5 MT 1305. Gross weight: not measured on all seven.

• 1.6 MT (90 hp): 1120 ÷ 90 ≈ 12.44 kg/hp
• 1.6 MT (98 hp): 1140 ÷ 98 ≈ 11.63 kg/hp
• 2.0 MT (113 hp): 1200 ÷ 113 ≈ 10.62 kg/hp
• 2.0 MT (122 hp): 1200 ÷ 122 ≈ 9.84 kg/hp
• 2.0 MT (135 hp): 1200 ÷ 135 ≈ 8.89 kg/hp — lightest per horsepower
• 2.5 MT (90 hp Turbo): 1305 ÷ 90 ≈ 14.50 kg/hp
• 2.5 MT (72 hp): 1305 ÷ 72 ≈ 18.13 kg/hp — heaviest per horsepower

The 98 hp 1.6 is 20 kg heavier than the 90 hp 1.6 but 0.81 kg/hp lighter. Stepping from 1.6 MT (98 hp) to any 2.0 MT adds 60 kg and still improves kg/hp because power rises more than mass. Both diesels add 185 kg vs the lightest 1.6 (1120 → 1305) and 105 kg vs the 2.0s; the Turbo diesel matches the 90 hp 1.6 on power but carries 185 kg more, so 2.06 kg/hp worse than that 1.6.

Performance: 0–100, top speed, and what is not measured

0–100 is measured on two cars only:

• 2.0 MT (113 hp): 11.6 s
• 2.5 MT (90 hp Turbo): 13.0 s — 1.4 s slower than the 113 hp 2.0, despite Turbo, because 1305 kg vs 1200 kg (−105 kg on the gasoline car) and 23 hp less.

0–100 is not measured on 1.6 MT (90 hp), 1.6 MT (98 hp), 2.0 MT (122 hp), 2.0 MT (135 hp) and 2.5 MT (72 hp).

Top speed (all seven measured):

The 8 hp step between the two 1.6 MT cars is worth 20 km/h on top speed — larger than the 5 km/h gap from the weakest 1.6 to the NA diesel, and larger than the 10 km/h Turbo-diesel step (150 → 160). Inside the 2.0 trio, each power step is +9 hp then +13 hp, and top speed steps +5 then +10 (170 → 175 → 185). The 135 hp 2.0 MT is 20 km/h faster than the 98 hp 1.6 MT and 25 km/h faster than the Turbo diesel.

MPG and fuel consumption: the 2.0 that uses less than the 1.6

Consumption is not measured on 1.6 MT (90 hp) and both 2.5 MT diesels — so “diesel economy” is not a number you can buy on here.

Measured gasoline figures:

2.0 MT (122 hp) is the thriftiest measured car: mixed 9.2, 0.2 below the 98 hp 1.6 and 0.9 below the 113 hp 2.0. City 10.5 is 2.3 below the 113 hp 2.0 (12.8) and 0.8 below the 98 hp 1.6 (11.3). Highway 7.2 sits 0.2 above the 1.6’s 7 and 0.5 below the 113 hp 2.0.

2.0 MT (113 hp) is the thirstiest measured: mixed 10.1, city 12.8, highway 7.7 — and it is the only 2.0 with a measured 0–100 (11.6 s). You pay 0.9 mixed vs the 122 hp car for that timed sprint and 9 hp less peak.

2.0 MT (135 hp) mixed 9.8 is 0.6 above the 122 hp car and 0.3 below the 113 hp car. Extra 13 hp vs 122 hp costs 0.6 mixed; extra 22 hp vs 113 hp actually saves 0.3 mixed. Specific output 67.7 hp/L and 8.89 kg/hp line up with that: the top 2.0 is not the thirsty outlier.

Tank size: not measured on all seven, so range cannot be calculated.

Dimensions and weight (what is measured)

Ground clearance 125 on every version — no “higher” Argenta. Kerb: 1120 / 1140 / 1200 / 1305 as above. Gross weight, tank, wheels: not measured. Front: Independent, spring; rear: not measured. Front brakes Disc; rear: not measured.

Which version to choose

If the question is “which 1.6 MT”: take 1.6 MT (98 hp) over 1.6 MT (90 hp) unless you need the only measured torque (122 Nm at 4250) and the lowest kerb (1120). You give 20 kg and gain 8 hp, 5.0 hp/L, 0.81 kg/hp, and 20 km/h top speed (145 → 165). Consumption on the 90 hp 1.6 is not measured, so you cannot claim it is cheaper to run.

If the question is “1.6 or 2.0”: 2.0 MT (122 hp) is the clean comparison to 1.6 MT (98 hp): +24 hp, same ~61 hp/L class, −1.79 kg/hp (11.63 → 9.84), +10 km/h (165 → 175), lower mixed (9.2 vs 9.4) and lower city (10.5 vs 11.3). The 60 kg penalty is the price. 2.0 MT (113 hp) is the weaker deal vs that 1.6: +15 hp but mixed 10.1 vs 9.4 and city 12.8 vs 11.3; its unique measured 0–100 of 11.6 s is the reason to pick it if a timed sprint matters and economy does not. 2.0 MT (135 hp) vs the 98 hp 1.6: +37 hp, +20 km/h (165 → 185), mixed 9.8 vs 9.4 (+0.4). Best kg/hp in the catalogue (8.89). 0–100 not measured.

If the question is “which 2.0 MT”: 2.0 MT (122 hp) if mixed/city numbers decide — 9.2 / 10.5 / 7.2, top 175. 2.0 MT (135 hp) if peak speed and specific output decide — 185 km/h, 67.7 hp/L, same 1200 kg; mixed only 0.6 worse. 2.0 MT (113 hp) only if you need the sole gasoline 0–100 figure (11.6 s) and accept the worst measured consumption.

If the question is Diesel: both 2.5 MT cars are 1305 kg, 125 clearance, Manual 5, FWD. 2.5 MT (72 hp) is the slowest-power car (72 hp, 29.4 hp/L, 18.13 kg/hp, top 150). 2.5 MT (90 hp Turbo) is the only Turbo: +18 hp, 36.1 hp/L, 14.50 kg/hp, top 160, 0–100 13.0 s. Fuel use is not measured on either diesel, so you are not buying a proven mpg win — you are buying Diesel fuel type, more mass, and, on the Turbo, the only forced-induction Argenta. The Turbo diesel ties 1.6 MT (90 hp) on 90 hp / 66 kW but is 185 kg heavier and 15 km/h faster (160 vs 145), and 5 km/h slower than 1.6 MT (98 hp). Versus 2.0 MT (113 hp) it is 1.4 s slower 0–100 and 10 km/h slower on top.

One-line ranking from the numbers (not from price — prices are not in the data): lightest and only torque figure — 1.6 MT (90 hp). Best small-gasoline step — 1.6 MT (98 hp). Best measured economy and mid 2.0 — 2.0 MT (122 hp). Only gasoline sprint time — 2.0 MT (113 hp). Highest speed, densest gasoline, lowest kg/hp — 2.0 MT (135 hp). Only Turbo, only timed diesel — 2.5 MT (90 hp). Lowest power, highest kg/hp — 2.5 MT (72 hp). With one generation and one body, that list is the whole choice.