Ford Consul

Ford Consul: which version to buy and why

If you are choosing a Ford Consul rather than reading a general model page, the decision is narrow: there is 1 generation (1972–1976), one body — Coupe — and 4 petrol, rear-drive, 4-speed Manual versions, all with 127 mm ground clearance, independent spring front suspension, and front Disc brakes.

If you are choosing a Ford Consul rather than reading a general model page, the decision is narrow: there is 1 generation (1972–1976), one body — Coupe — and 4 petrol, rear-drive, 4-speed Manual versions, all with 127 mm ground clearance, independent spring front suspension, and front Disc brakes. There is no later generation to “wait for,” no restyle listed as a separate generation, and no automatic or all-wheel-drive row in the data. The useful question is which of the four engines you actually want: 1.7 MT (75 hp), 2.0 MT (99 hp), 2.3 MT (107 hp), or the other 2.0 MT (90 hp).

Kerb weight, gross weight, 0–100, top speed, fuel consumption, tank size, and wheel sizes are not measured on every version, so this comparison uses only the measured fields: power, displacement, torque where present, cylinder count, layout, boost, gearbox, drive, fuel grade, and the chassis numbers that are the same on all four.

Specs that decide the buy: engines compared

All four versions: Gasoline, No boost, Manual, 4 gears, RWD, years 1972-01-01 to 1976-12-31.

Power per litre (hp ÷ litres from the table): 1.7 MT 75 / 1.695 ≈ 44.2 hp/L; 2.0 MT (99 hp) 99 / 1.997 ≈ 49.6 hp/L; 2.3 MT 107 / 2.300 ≈ 46.5 hp/L; 2.0 MT (90 hp) 90 / 1.998 ≈ 45.0 hp/L. The densest engine on paper is the four-cylinder 2.0 MT (99 hp), not the six-cylinder 2.3 MT.

Two cars named 2.0 MT: 99 hp versus 90 hp

Do not treat “2.0 MT” as one car. The catalogue lists two versions with the same name. Separate them by power.

2.0 MT (99 hp) is a 4-cylinder Inline engine, 1997 cc, 99 hp / 73 kW, fuel 92, valves per cylinder 2, torque not measured. 2.0 MT (90 hp) is a 6-cylinder V-shaped engine, 1998 cc, 90 hp / 66 kW, fuel 80, valves per cylinder 2, torque 158 Nm, peak power rpm 5100, feed Carburetor, bore × stroke 84 × 60.14.

Arithmetic on those rows:

• Displacement differs by 1 cc (1998 − 1997). That is not a “bigger two-litre”; it is two different engines that happen to share a name.
• The 99 hp row has 9 hp more than the 90 hp row (99 − 90) and 7 kW more (73 − 66).
• Specific output: 49.6 hp/L versus 45.0 hp/L — about 4.6 hp/L in favour of the 99 hp 2.0 MT.
• Fuel grade: 92 on the 99 hp four-cylinder versus 80 on the 90 hp six. If the local pump is 80-grade, only the 90 hp 2.0 MT is specified for that fuel in this data. If the pump is 92, three versions match (1.7 MT, 2.0 MT 99 hp, 2.3 MT).
• Cylinder count: 4 versus 6. Layout: Inline versus V-shaped. Same displacement band, different architecture.
• Torque is measured only on the 90 hp 2.0 MT (158 Nm). On the 99 hp 2.0 MT torque is not measured — that absence is not “no torque,” it is a missing figure.

If the goal is the strongest two-litre by horsepower and by hp per litre, the answer is 2.0 MT (99 hp). If the goal is a 6-cylinder V-shaped two-litre with a published 158 Nm and 80 fuel, the answer is 2.0 MT (90 hp). Those are opposite picks, not two trims of one engine.

2.3 MT versus everything else: what the extra displacement buys

2.3 MT is the peak-power version: 107 hp / 79 kW, 176 Nm at 3000 rpm, power at 5300 rpm, 2300 cc, 6 cylinders V-shaped, 2 valves per cylinder, Carburetor, compression 9, bore × stroke 90 × 60.1, fuel 92.

Versus 1.7 MT (75 hp, 1695 cc, 4 cylinders V-shaped):

• +32 hp (107 − 75), +24 kW (79 − 55).
• +605 cc (2300 − 1695).
• Two extra cylinders (6 versus 4). Both layouts are V-shaped.
• Torque: 176 Nm versus not measured on 1.7 MT.
• Fuel both 92. Boost both No. Gearbox both Manual 4, drive both RWD.
• Specific output: 46.5 hp/L versus 44.2 hp/L — only about 2.3 hp/L more despite 32 hp more in absolute terms. The extra power is mostly extra capacity, not a much denser engine.

Versus 2.0 MT (99 hp, 1997 cc, 4 Inline):

• +8 hp (107 − 99), +6 kW (79 − 73).
• +303 cc (2300 − 1997).
• Cylinders 6 V-shaped versus 4 Inline.
• Specific output worse on the 2.3: 46.5 hp/L versus 49.6 hp/L (about 3.1 hp/L less). You pay 303 cc and two extra cylinders for 8 hp.
• Torque 176 Nm versus not measured.
• Fuel both 92.

Versus 2.0 MT (90 hp, 1998 cc, 6 V-shaped):

• +17 hp (107 − 90), +13 kW (79 − 66).
• +302 cc (2300 − 1998).
• Same cylinder count (6) and same layout (V-shaped), both Carburetor, both 2 valves per cylinder.
• Torque +18 Nm (176 − 158).
• Fuel 92 versus 80.
• Bore/stroke: 90 × 60.1 versus 84 × 60.14 — stroke almost the same, bore 6 mm larger on 2.3 MT.
• Specific output 46.5 hp/L versus 45.0 hp/L — close. Torque per litre: 176 / 2.300 ≈ 76.5 Nm/L versus 158 / 1.998 ≈ 79.1 Nm/L. The smaller six is slightly denser in torque; the 2.3 is stronger in absolute Nm and hp.

2.3 MT is the buy if you want the highest listed horsepower (107), the only 2300 cc row, and the highest listed torque (176 Nm). It is not the buy if you want the highest hp per litre — that is 2.0 MT (99 hp).

1.7 MT: when the smallest engine is the rational pick

1.7 MT: 75 hp / 55 kW, 1695 cc, Gasoline, 4 cylinders V-shaped, No boost, fuel 92, Manual 4, RWD. Torque, valves per cylinder, feed system, compression, bore × stroke: not measured.

Gaps to the others:

• 24 hp behind 2.0 MT (99 hp) (99 − 75); 18 kW behind (73 − 55). Displacement 302 cc smaller (1997 − 1695). Both are fours; layouts differ (V-shaped versus Inline).
• 15 hp behind 2.0 MT (90 hp) (90 − 75); 11 kW behind (66 − 55). Displacement 303 cc smaller (1998 − 1695). Cylinder count 4 versus 6.
• 32 hp behind 2.3 MT, as above.

1.7 MT has the lowest absolute power and the lowest specific output of the four (44.2 hp/L). There is no consumption figure to claim it is “cheaper to run”: city, highway, combined, tank, and CO2 are not measured. The case for 1.7 MT is only what the data actually shows: smallest displacement, fewest horsepower, still the same RWD / Manual 4 / 127 mm clearance / Coupe package as the others, fuel 92. If you need the least engine in the same chassis, this is the row. If you need measurable torque, skip it — Nm is not measured.

Generations: there is nothing later to wait for

1 generation only: 1972-01-01–1976-12-31, body Coupe, 4 versions. No second generation is in the data, so there is no “which generation changed what” beyond this one window. Ground clearance 127 mm, front suspension Independent, spring, front brakes Disc, drive RWD, gearbox Manual with 4 gears — identical on all four versions. A generation-to-generation upgrade path does not exist here; the choice is engine-to-engine inside one Coupe.

Weight per horsepower cannot be calculated: kerb weight and gross weight are not measured on all four. Do not rank “lightest” or “best power-to-weight”; those numbers are absent.

Performance, mpg, dimensions: what is not measured

0–100: not measured on 1.7 MT, 2.0 MT (99 hp), 2.3 MT, 2.0 MT (90 hp). Top speed: not measured on all four. Fuel consumption (city / highway / combined): not measured on all four. MPG is not in the data. CO2 and eco class: not measured. Tank: not measured. Kerb weight and gross weight: not measured. Wheels: not measured. Ground clearance: 127 mm on all four — not a differentiator.

You cannot pick a Consul “for acceleration,” “for top speed,” or “for mpg” from this catalogue. Those fields are empty. You can pick on hp, kW, displacement, cylinder layout, fuel grade, and (where listed) Nm.

Reliability and problems

No reliability, recall, or problem counts are in the launch data. Do not invent them. What is shared and therefore not a version filter: Gasoline, No boost, Manual 4, RWD, Coupe, 127 mm clearance, independent spring front, front Disc. Differences that can affect ownership are the ones in the table: 4 versus 6 cylinders, Inline versus V-shaped, Carburetor listed on 2.3 MT and 2.0 MT (90 hp) but not measured on 1.7 MT and 2.0 MT (99 hp), fuel 92 versus 80, and whether torque is published (2.3 MT 176 Nm, 2.0 MT 90 hp 158 Nm, others not measured).

Which version to choose

Want maximum listed power and torque: 2.3 MT — 107 hp, 79 kW, 176 Nm, 2300 cc, 6 V-shaped, fuel 92. Versus the next-strongest named two-litre it is only 8 hp more than 2.0 MT (99 hp) for 303 cc extra and two more cylinders.

Want the strongest two-litre by hp and by hp/L, 92-octane, four cylinders: 2.0 MT (99 hp) — 99 hp, 73 kW, 1997 cc, 4 Inline, 49.6 hp/L (highest of the four). Torque not measured.

Want a six-cylinder two-litre and 80 fuel: 2.0 MT (90 hp) — 90 hp, 66 kW, 158 Nm, 1998 cc, 6 V-shaped, Carburetor, fuel 80. Same name as the 99 hp row; 9 hp weaker, 1 cc larger, different layout.

Want the smallest engine in the same Coupe: 1.7 MT — 75 hp, 55 kW, 1695 cc, 4 V-shaped, fuel 92. 32 hp below 2.3 MT. Consumption and weight not measured, so this is not a proven economy pick.

There is no price in the data, so “what the extra money buys” cannot be stated in currency. In hardware, the extra displacement from 1.7 MT to 2.3 MT buys 32 hp and a published 176 Nm; from 2.0 MT (99 hp) to 2.3 MT it buys only 8 hp. The extra cylinders from four to six on the ~2.0-litre nameplate (2.0 MT 99 hp → 2.0 MT 90 hp) do not buy more horsepower; they coincide with 9 hp less and a drop from fuel 92 to 80.

Same chassis numbers on every pick: Coupe, RWD, Manual 4, 127 mm, Independent, spring front, front Disc, production 1972–1976, 1 generation. Choose the engine row; the rest of the car, in this dataset, does not change.