Ford Anglia: which version to buy and why
Between the two Ford Anglia versions in this catalogue — 1.0 MT and 1.2 MT — the choice is not “which generation.” This listing covers 1 generation (labelled 4 generation, 1959-01-01 to 1968-12-31), one body (Sedan 2-doors), rear-wheel drive, and a 4-speed Manual on both cars. The buy decision is arithmetic: 7 hp, 8 Nm, 201 cm³, 28 kg, 7.4 s to 100 km/h, and 9 km/h of top speed.
Between the two Ford Anglia versions in this catalogue — 1.0 MT and 1.2 MT — the choice is not “which generation.” This listing covers 1 generation (labelled 4 generation, 1959-01-01 to 1968-12-31), one body (Sedan 2-doors), rear-wheel drive, and a 4-speed Manual on both cars. The buy decision is arithmetic: 7 hp, 8 Nm, 201 cm³, 28 kg, 7.4 s to 100 km/h, and 9 km/h of top speed. Fuel use on mixed cycle is measured only on 1.0 MT (6.86); on 1.2 MT mixed consumption is not measured.
Which Ford Anglia version to choose
1.2 MT is the version to choose if the point of buying is usable speed. It makes 46 hp (33 kW) at 4900 rpm and 82 Nm at 2700 rpm from 1198 cm³ Gasoline, versus 39 hp (28 kW) at 5000 rpm and 74 Nm at 2700 rpm from 997 cm³ on 1.0 MT. That is +17.9% peak power and +10.8% peak torque for +3.8% kerb weight (765 kg versus 737 kg). 0–100 km/h drops from 26.9 s to 19.5 s (7.4 s quicker, 27.5% less time). Top speed rises from 119 km/h to 128 km/h (+9 km/h, +7.6%).
1.0 MT is the version to choose if the point is lower mass, a higher compression ratio, and a measured mixed figure. Kerb weight is 737 kg (28 kg lighter). Compression is 8.9 versus 7.8 on 1.2 MT. Mixed consumption is 6.86 (units as in the source table) with a 32 L tank; a tank-to-mixed-use estimate is 32 / 6.86 × 100 ≈ 467 km of mixed range. 1.2 MT has the same 32 L tank, but mixed, city, and highway consumption are all not measured, so you cannot claim it uses more or less fuel than 1.0 MT from this dataset.
Neither version changes layout: Gasoline, 4 cylinders Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, engine Front, longitudinal, gearbox Manual 4, drive RWD. Front brakes Drum, rear Drum. Front suspension Independent, spring; rear Dependent, leaf spring. Ground clearance not measured. Wheel sizes not measured. CO2 not measured. Eco class not measured. City mpg not measured. Highway mpg not measured.
If you need one sentence: buy 1.2 MT for the 7.4 s and 9 km/h; buy 1.0 MT for 28 kg less mass, 8.9 compression, and the only mixed-consumption number in the table.
Specs compared: 1.0 MT vs 1.2 MT
| Version | hp | Nm | Displacement (cm³) | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 MT | 39 | 74 | 997 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual | RWD |
| 1.2 MT | 46 | 82 | 1198 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual | RWD |
Power per litre (hp ÷ litres): 1.0 MT 39 / 0.997 ≈ 39.1 hp/L; 1.2 MT 46 / 1.198 ≈ 38.4 hp/L. The smaller engine is slightly more specific; the larger engine wins on absolute power, not on output per litre.
Kerb weight per horsepower: 1.0 MT 737 / 39 ≈ 18.9 kg/hp; 1.2 MT 765 / 46 ≈ 16.6 kg/hp. 1.2 MT carries about 2.3 kg less mass per horsepower.
Torque per litre: 1.0 MT 74 / 0.997 ≈ 74.2 Nm/L; 1.2 MT 82 / 1.198 ≈ 68.4 Nm/L. Again the 997 cm³ unit is denser; 1.2 MT still has 8 Nm more at the same 2700 rpm.
Stroke is the mechanical difference you can see in the numbers: bore is 80.96 mm on both; stroke is 48.41 mm on 1.0 MT and 58.17 mm on 1.2 MT (+9.76 mm). Displacement rise 1198 − 997 = 201 cm³ is almost all stroke. Peak power rpm is 100 rpm lower on 1.2 MT (4900 versus 5000). Compression falls from 8.9 to 7.8. Fuel grade on both is 76.
What the extra displacement “buys” in this table, with no prices in the data: +7 hp, +8 Nm, −7.4 s to 100 km/h, +9 km/h top speed, +28 kg kerb, +27 kg gross (1100 versus 1073), and you give up the mixed-consumption measurement.
Engine and drivetrain: what is the same
Both Ford Anglia versions are Gasoline, naturally aspirated (boost No), Carburetor, 4 Inline cylinders, 2 valves per cylinder, Front, longitudinal, Manual 4, RWD. There is no automatic, no other cylinder count, and no other drive type in this generation. You are not choosing a different architecture; you are choosing 997 cm³ / 39 hp / 74 Nm versus 1198 cm³ / 46 hp / 82 Nm.
Rated power in kW tracks the hp step: 28 kW on 1.0 MT, 33 kW on 1.2 MT (+5 kW). Peak torque rpm is identical (2700). That means the extra 8 Nm of 1.2 MT arrives at the same engine speed as the 74 Nm of 1.0 MT, not later.
Performance, mpg, and what is not measured
0–100 km/h: 1.0 MT 26.9 s; 1.2 MT 19.5 s. Difference 7.4 s. Relative: 1.2 MT needs 72.5% of the time 1.0 MT needs.
Top speed: 1.0 MT 119 km/h; 1.2 MT 128 km/h. Difference 9 km/h.
Mixed consumption: 1.0 MT 6.86; 1.2 MT not measured. City consumption: both not measured. Highway consumption: both not measured. You cannot rank mpg between versions from this dataset except to record that only 1.0 MT has a mixed figure.
CO2: both not measured. Eco class: both not measured.
Tank: 32 L on both. On 1.0 MT, mixed range estimate 32 / 6.86 × 100 ≈ 467 km. On 1.2 MT, range from mixed mpg is not measured because mixed consumption is not measured.
Dimensions, weight, and payload
Kerb weight: 1.0 MT 737 kg; 1.2 MT 765 kg (+28 kg, +3.8%).
Gross weight: 1.0 MT 1073 kg; 1.2 MT 1100 kg (+27 kg).
Payload (gross minus kerb): 1.0 MT 1073 − 737 = 336 kg; 1.2 MT 1100 − 765 = 335 kg. The extra 28 kg on the kerb of 1.2 MT is almost entirely absorbed in the higher gross rating; carrying capacity is 1 kg apart. You do not buy 1.2 MT for payload.
Ground clearance: not measured on both. Wheel sizes: not measured on both. Body for both: Sedan 2-doors.
Chassis items that do not split the choice: front Independent, spring; rear Dependent, leaf spring; front Drum; rear Drum. There is no disc-brake version and no independent-rear version in these two rows.
Generations: what changed (and what did not)
This catalogue lists 1 generation of Ford Anglia: 4 generation, 1959-01-01 to 1968-12-31, 2 versions, body Sedan 2-doors. There is no second generation in the data to compare year-to-year, and no restyling called out as a separate generation. Production window is the same on 1.0 MT and 1.2 MT (1959-01-01 to 1968-12-31), so you cannot pick a later year-code inside this table to get a different engine.
What “changed” inside the generation is only the engine row: displacement 997 versus 1198, stroke 48.41 versus 58.17, compression 8.9 versus 7.8, power 39 versus 46 hp, torque 74 versus 82 Nm, kerb 737 versus 765 kg, 0–100 26.9 versus 19.5 s, top speed 119 versus 128 km/h, mixed 6.86 versus not measured. Layout, gearbox, drive, brakes, suspension, tank, body, and years did not change between versions.
Reliability and problems: what this table can and cannot say
This dataset has no failure rates, no service intervals, and no owner-reported problems. What it does fix: both cars are Carburetor Gasoline with boost No, Drum brakes at both ends, RWD, and Manual 4. Compression is higher on 1.0 MT (8.9 vs 7.8); fuel grade is 76 on both. Mixed consumption exists only for 1.0 MT (6.86). Treating “not measured” as “does not exist” would be wrong: ground clearance, wheels, CO2, eco class, city and highway mpg are simply not measured here.
Decision in numbers
- Want the shortest 0–100 and the highest top speed in this listing: 1.2 MT (19.5 s, 128 km/h, 46 hp, 82 Nm, 16.6 kg/hp).
- Want the lightest kerb, higher compression, better specific output, and the only mixed-consumption figure: 1.0 MT (737 kg, 8.9, ≈39.1 hp/L, mixed 6.86).
- Payload is not a reason to switch: 336 kg versus 335 kg.
- There is no other generation, no other body, and no third version name in this Ford Anglia table. The exact version names to keep as anchors are 1.0 MT and 1.2 MT.