Honda Zest: which version to buy (2006–2012)
The Honda Zest was sold as one generation from February 2006 to November 2012, in a Mini 5-doors body, with four versions — all catalogued as 0.7 AT. The buying question is not “which generation” (there is only one) and not “which gearbox” (every car is Automatic, 4 speeds). It is which of the four 0.7 AT cars to take: 52 hp or 64 hp, FWD or AWD.
The Honda Zest was sold as one generation from February 2006 to November 2012, in a Mini 5-doors body, with four versions — all catalogued as 0.7 AT. The buying question is not “which generation” (there is only one) and not “which gearbox” (every car is Automatic, 4 speeds). It is which of the four 0.7 AT cars to take: 52 hp or 64 hp, FWD or AWD. Those two splits explain every measured gap in this catalogue.
All four share a 658 cc Gasoline engine, 3 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, multi-point injection, 95 fuel, a 35 L tank, 155 mm ground clearance, Independent, spring front and Dependent, spring rear suspension, Disc front and Drum rear brakes. Fuel consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight and wheel size are not measured on any version. The extra you “buy” is therefore only power, drive, kerb weight and the 0–100 / top-speed figures that follow.
Honda Zest generations (what actually changed)
1 generation (2006-02-01 – 2012-11-30). Mini 5-doors, 4 versions, no restyling listed as a separate generation. Production start and stop are the same for every 0.7 AT. Nothing in the data shows a later generation with a different body, a different gearbox, or a larger engine. Choosing a Zest is choosing among four cars of the same generation, not among eras.
Honda Zest specs: four 0.7 AT versions compared
| Version | hp (kW @ rpm) | Nm @ rpm | cc | Fuel | Cylinders / layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.7 AT 52 hp FWD | 52 (38 @ 6700) | 61 @ 3800 | 658 | Gasoline 95 | 3 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 0.7 AT 52 hp AWD | 52 (38 @ 6700) | 61 @ 3800 | 658 | Gasoline 95 | 3 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | AWD |
| 0.7 AT 64 hp FWD | 64 (47 @ 6000) | 93 @ 4000 | 658 | Gasoline 95 | 3 Inline | Turbo | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 0.7 AT 64 hp AWD | 64 (47 @ 6000) | 93 @ 4000 | 658 | Gasoline 95 | 3 Inline | Turbo | Automatic 4 | AWD |
Same name, two engines: the 52 hp pair has No boost; the 64 hp pair is Turbo. Peak power arrives 700 rpm earlier on the turbo (6000 vs 6700). Peak torque arrives 200 rpm later (4000 vs 3800) but is 32 Nm higher (93 vs 61, +52%). Specific output on 658 cc is 79.0 hp/L for 52 hp and 97.3 hp/L for 64 hp (+18.3 hp/L). That is the entire engine choice.
Performance and mpg: what the extra 12 hp actually does
0–100 km/h (measured):
- 0.7 AT 52 hp FWD: 22.7 s
- 0.7 AT 52 hp AWD: 25.4 s — 2.7 s slower than the same 52 hp FWD
- 0.7 AT 64 hp FWD: 15.7 s — 7.0 s faster than 52 hp FWD
- 0.7 AT 64 hp AWD: 17.2 s — 1.5 s slower than 64 hp FWD, 8.2 s faster than 52 hp AWD
Top speed: 130 km/h on both 52 hp cars; 140 km/h on both 64 hp cars (+10 km/h). Drive type does not change the listed top speed; boost and the extra 12 hp do.
Fuel consumption (mpg): city, highway and combined are not measured on any 0.7 AT. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. You cannot rank versions by economy from this catalogue. The tank is 35 L on all four, so range cannot be calculated either.
If the decision is “fastest 0–100,” the order is fixed: 64 hp FWD (15.7 s) → 64 hp AWD (17.2 s) → 52 hp FWD (22.7 s) → 52 hp AWD (25.4 s). The turbo FWD is 9.7 s quicker than the naturally aspirated AWD — the largest gap between any two Zest versions.
Dimensions and weight: what AWD costs in kilograms
Ground clearance is 155 mm on every 0.7 AT. Wheel sizes are not measured. Gross weight is not measured. Kerb weight is the only size-related number that splits the range:
- 0.7 AT 52 hp FWD: 880 kg
- 0.7 AT 64 hp FWD: 910 kg — +30 kg vs 52 hp FWD (turbo hardware)
- 0.7 AT 52 hp AWD: 950 kg — +70 kg vs 52 hp FWD (AWD)
- 0.7 AT 64 hp AWD: 970 kg — +90 kg vs 52 hp FWD; +60 kg vs 64 hp FWD; +20 kg vs 52 hp AWD
AWD is the heavier option on both engines (+70 kg at 52 hp, +60 kg at 64 hp). Turbo on FWD adds 30 kg; turbo on AWD adds 20 kg versus the 52 hp AWD.
Weight per horsepower:
- 52 hp FWD: 880 / 52 = 16.9 kg/hp
- 52 hp AWD: 950 / 52 = 18.3 kg/hp (worst)
- 64 hp FWD: 910 / 64 = 14.2 kg/hp (best)
- 64 hp AWD: 970 / 64 = 15.2 kg/hp
The lightest, strongest-per-kilo car is the 0.7 AT 64 hp FWD. The heaviest-per-kilo car is the 0.7 AT 52 hp AWD. That ranking matches 0–100 exactly.
Which Honda Zest version to choose
There is one generation and one body. The four 0.7 AT cars are two engines × two drives. Prices are not in this catalogue, so “what the extra money buys” here means what the extra 12 hp, extra 32 Nm, extra 10 km/h, extra 30–90 kg, and extra 2.7 / 1.5 s of 0–100 actually are.
Choose 0.7 AT 64 hp FWD if you want the strongest measured performance. It is the quickest (15.7 s 0–100), shares the highest top speed (140 km/h), has the best kg/hp (14.2), and is only 30 kg heavier than the lightest Zest. Versus 52 hp FWD you gain 12 hp, 32 Nm, 7.0 s to 100 and 10 km/h, for 30 kg. Versus 64 hp AWD you give up AWD and save 60 kg and 1.5 s.
Choose 0.7 AT 64 hp AWD if you want Turbo and AWD together. It is second-quickest (17.2 s), same 140 km/h as the turbo FWD, 15.2 kg/hp, heaviest kerb at 970 kg. Versus 52 hp AWD you still gain 12 hp, 32 Nm, 8.2 s to 100 and 10 km/h, for only 20 kg. That is the cheapest-looking power upgrade in kilograms: turbo on AWD adds less mass than turbo on FWD (20 vs 30 kg). Versus 64 hp FWD you pay 60 kg and 1.5 s for AWD.
Choose 0.7 AT 52 hp FWD if you want the lightest car and do not need Turbo or AWD. 880 kg is the floor. You keep 130 km/h and 22.7 s 0–100 — 7.0 s slower than turbo FWD, but 2.7 s faster than 52 hp AWD and 70 kg lighter. Specific output stays 79.0 hp/L. This is the only version that is both lightest and front-drive.
Choose 0.7 AT 52 hp AWD only if AWD is the requirement and Turbo is not. It is the slowest (25.4 s), same 130 km/h as 52 hp FWD, worst kg/hp (18.3), 950 kg. Versus 52 hp FWD, AWD costs 70 kg and 2.7 s with no extra horsepower and no extra top speed. Versus 64 hp AWD you save 20 kg but lose 12 hp, 32 Nm, 8.2 s and 10 km/h.
What does not help the choice. Fuel use is not measured, so mpg cannot pick a winner. Wheels are not measured. Gross weight is not measured. Clearance is identical (155 mm). Brakes, suspension layout, tank (35 L), gearbox (Automatic 4) and body (Mini 5-doors) do not differ. Engine position is not measured. Compression and bore/stroke are not measured.
Short ranking from the numbers only. Fastest and best kg/hp: 0.7 AT 64 hp FWD. Fastest with AWD: 0.7 AT 64 hp AWD. Lightest: 0.7 AT 52 hp FWD. Slowest and worst kg/hp: 0.7 AT 52 hp AWD. If the split is engine first, take 64 hp unless you explicitly want No boost. If the split is drive first, take FWD unless you explicitly want AWD — AWD never adds speed or power in this data; it only adds 60–70 kg and 1.5–2.7 s.