GP Madison

GP Madison: Which Version Should You Choose?

The GP Madison catalogue lists one generation, one Coupe body style, and three versions, all carrying the exact same name: 1.6 MT. The meaningful distinction is therefore engine output: 50 hp, 75 hp, or 90 hp. All three use Gasoline, a Carburetor, a naturally aspirated four-cylinder engine, a Manual gearbox with four gears, and RWD.

The GP Madison catalogue lists one generation, one Coupe body style, and three versions, all carrying the exact same name: 1.6 MT. The meaningful distinction is therefore engine output: 50 hp, 75 hp, or 90 hp. All three use Gasoline, a Carburetor, a naturally aspirated four-cylinder engine, a Manual gearbox with four gears, and RWD. For the strongest power-to-displacement result, choose the 1.6 MT (90 hp). For the most complete combination of output and torque figures, the 1.6 MT (75 hp) is the clearest middle choice. The 1.6 MT (50 hp) is the only version with a measured kerb weight, but it is also the least powerful.

GP Madison generations: what changed?

There is only one GP Madison generation in the supplied catalogue, so there is no intergenerational change to compare. The 1 generation ran from 1980 to 1999, used a Coupe body, and contained three versions. No separate restyling is listed.

The choice is nevertheless more substantial than the shared 1.6 MT name suggests. The 1.6 MT (50 hp) has a 1,584 cc Opposite engine installed at the Rear. The 1.6 MT (75 hp) has a 1,593 cc Inline engine in a Front, longitudinal position. The 1.6 MT (90 hp) also uses an Inline engine in a Front, longitudinal position, but its displacement is 1,600 cc.

Engine specs and version comparison

The 1.6 MT (90 hp) produces approximately 56.3 hp per litre, compared with approximately 47.1 hp per litre for the 1.6 MT (75 hp) and 31.6 hp per litre for the 1.6 MT (50 hp). It therefore has the highest specific output despite having only 7 cc more displacement than the 75 hp version and 16 cc more than the 50 hp version.

Moving from the 1.6 MT (50 hp) to the 1.6 MT (75 hp) adds 25 hp, an increase of 50%, while displacement rises by only 9 cc. Torque increases by 23 Nm, or approximately 23.7%. Moving from the 1.6 MT (75 hp) to the 1.6 MT (90 hp) adds another 15 hp, or 20%, for an increase of only 7 cc. A torque comparison with the 90 hp version is impossible because its torque was not measured.

The two lower-output engines differ in their operating figures as well. The 1.6 MT (50 hp) reaches its measured 50 hp at 4,000 rpm and 97 Nm at 2,200 rpm. The 1.6 MT (75 hp) reaches 75 hp at 5,300 rpm and 120 Nm at 2,900 rpm. The compression ratio is 7.75 for the 50 hp engine and 9.2 for the 75 hp engine; it is not measured for the 90 hp engine. Bore and stroke are 85.5 × 69 mm for the 50 hp version and 87.65 × 66 mm for the 75 hp version; they are not measured for the 90 hp version.

Performance, mpg, and fuel economy

Acceleration from 0–100 km/h is not measured for the 1.6 MT (50 hp), 1.6 MT (75 hp), or 1.6 MT (90 hp). Top speed is likewise not measured for all three versions. The horsepower figures indicate their relative engine outputs, but they do not provide enough information to state how quickly any version accelerates or how fast it can travel.

City fuel consumption is not measured for all three versions. Highway fuel consumption is not measured for all three versions, and combined fuel consumption is also not measured throughout the range. Consequently, no supported mpg comparison can be made. Tank capacity, CO₂ emissions, and emissions class are not measured for every version.

Dimensions, weight, ground clearance, and wheels

The 1.6 MT (50 hp) has a measured kerb weight of 590 kg. Its weight-to-power ratio is therefore 11.8 kg per hp, while its power-to-weight ratio is approximately 84.7 hp per tonne.

Kerb weight is not measured for the 1.6 MT (75 hp) and 1.6 MT (90 hp), so their weight-to-power figures cannot be calculated or compared with the 50 hp version. Gross weight is not measured for any version. Ground clearance is not measured, tank capacity is not measured, and wheel sizes are not measured for all three versions.

All versions have Independent, spring suspension at the front and Independent, spring suspension at the rear. Every version also has Drum front brakes and Drum rear brakes. These shared specifications do not separate the three choices.

Reliability and problems

Reliability results and recorded problems are not measured in the supplied data. There is no supported basis here for ranking the 1.6 MT (50 hp), 1.6 MT (75 hp), and 1.6 MT (90 hp) by durability, repair frequency, or ownership cost. Prices are also not measured, so it is not possible to calculate how much extra money one version costs or claim that a specific output provides better financial value.

Which GP Madison 1.6 MT should you buy?

Choose the 1.6 MT (90 hp) if maximum stated output is the priority. It leads the range by 15 hp over the 75 hp version and 40 hp over the 50 hp version. Its approximate 56.3 hp-per-litre specific output is also the highest of the three. The trade-off is missing comparative data: torque, torque rpm, power rpm, compression ratio, kerb weight, acceleration, top speed, and fuel consumption are all not measured.

Choose the 1.6 MT (75 hp) if you want the best-documented higher-output specification. Its 75 hp is 25 hp above the 50 hp version, and its 120 Nm exceeds the 50 hp engine’s 97 Nm by 23 Nm. Unlike the 90 hp version, it supplies measured power and torque rpm figures, compression ratio, and bore-and-stroke data.

Choose the 1.6 MT (50 hp) when the measured kerb weight or its distinctive configuration matters most. It is the only version with a stated 590 kg kerb weight and the only one with an Opposite engine in a Rear position. However, it produces 25 hp less than the middle version and 40 hp less than the most powerful version.

On the available evidence, the 1.6 MT (90 hp) is the power-led choice, the 1.6 MT (75 hp) is the most balanced choice for meaningful specification comparison, and the 1.6 MT (50 hp) is the choice defined by its measured low kerb weight and different engine arrangement. A final decision based on speed, economy, reliability, dimensions, or price cannot be supported because those comparative figures are not measured.