Lancia A 112: Which Version Should You Choose?
The Lancia A 112 was offered in three versions during its single generation: 0.9 MT, 1.0 MT, and 1.1 MT. All were Gasoline-powered, rear-wheel-drive Mini 3-doors produced from 1982 to 1986. The choice is mainly between the lighter 0.9 MT, the similarly weighted but more powerful 1.0 MT, and the 1.1 MT, which combines the highest output with the only 5-speed Manual gearbox in the range.
The Lancia A 112 was offered in three versions during its single generation: 0.9 MT, 1.0 MT, and 1.1 MT. All were Gasoline-powered, rear-wheel-drive Mini 3-doors produced from 1982 to 1986. The choice is mainly between the lighter 0.9 MT, the similarly weighted but more powerful 1.0 MT, and the 1.1 MT, which combines the highest output with the only 5-speed Manual gearbox in the range. Based strictly on the available specifications, the 1.1 MT has the strongest power-to-weight figures, while the 0.9 MT is the only version with measured acceleration, top speed, and torque data.
Lancia A 112 generations and version differences
The Lancia A 112 had one generation, produced from 1982 to 1986 as a Mini 3-doors body. This generation contains three versions: 0.9 MT, 1.0 MT, and 1.1 MT. No separate restyling is listed in the supplied data, so the buying decision is entirely between these three powertrain specifications rather than between different generations.
The shared specification makes the comparison relatively focused. Every version uses a naturally aspirated Gasoline engine with 4 Inline cylinders and RWD. All three have independent spring suspension at the front and rear, disc front brakes, drum rear brakes, 142 mm of ground clearance, and a 30-litre fuel tank. The principal changes concern displacement, power, fuel system, gearbox, and kerb weight.
Lancia A 112 engine and specs comparison
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.9 MT | 42 hp / 31 kW | 62 Nm at 3000 rpm | 903 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Manual | RWD |
| 1.0 MT | 48 hp / 35 kW | not measured | 965 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Manual | RWD |
| 1.1 MT | 70 hp / 51 kW at 6600 rpm | not measured | 1050 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | RWD |
The 1.0 MT adds 6 hp and 62 cc over the 0.9 MT, without adding any listed kerb weight: both weigh 670 kg. Its output is about 49.7 hp per litre, compared with approximately 46.5 hp per litre for the 0.9 MT. Weight per horsepower also improves from about 16.0 kg/hp in the 0.9 MT to approximately 14.0 kg/hp in the 1.0 MT.
The 1.1 MT makes the largest step. Compared with the 1.0 MT, it adds 22 hp and 85 cc while increasing kerb weight by 30 kg. Compared with the 0.9 MT, it adds 28 hp and 147 cc, with the same 30 kg weight increase. At roughly 66.7 hp per litre and 10.0 kg/hp, the 1.1 MT has the best calculated output-per-litre and weight-per-horsepower results of the three versions.
Fuel delivery also differs. The 0.9 MT uses Central injection (single-point or single- point), whereas the 1.0 MT and 1.1 MT use a Carburetor. The data does not include reliability or problem records for either system, so it cannot establish which is more dependable or easier to own.
Lancia A 112 performance and economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.9 MT | 18.6 seconds | 130 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.0 MT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.1 MT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
Only the 0.9 MT has measured performance figures: it accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 18.6 seconds and reaches 130 km/h. Acceleration and top speed are not measured for the 1.0 MT or 1.1 MT. The stronger calculated power-to-weight ratio of the 1.1 MT is useful for comparing specifications, but it is not a substitute for a measured acceleration time.
Fuel consumption is not measured for any of the three versions, whether in city, highway, or combined driving. Consequently, no evidence-based mpg ranking can be made. All versions carry the same 30-litre tank, but tank capacity alone does not determine fuel economy or driving range. CO₂ output and environmental class are also not measured for every version.
Lancia A 112 dimensions, weight, and chassis specs
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.9 MT | 670 kg | not measured | 142 mm | 30 litres | not measured |
| 1.0 MT | 670 kg | not measured | 142 mm | 30 litres | not measured |
| 1.1 MT | 700 kg | not measured | 142 mm | 30 litres | not measured |
The 0.9 MT and 1.0 MT share the lowest listed kerb weight at 670 kg. The 1.1 MT weighs 700 kg, making it 30 kg heavier, or about 4.5% heavier, than either smaller-engine version. Its 70 hp output is nevertheless about 45.8% higher than the 1.0 MT output and about 66.7% higher than the 0.9 MT output.
Gross weight and wheel sizes are not measured for any version. Body length, width, height, and wheelbase are also not measured, so there is no numerical basis for claiming that one version offers more cabin or luggage space. Each has the same Mini 3-doors body designation and the same 142 mm ground clearance.
Suspension and braking specifications do not separate the versions. Each uses Independent, spring suspension at both ends, with Disc front brakes and Drum rear brakes. These common components mean that the available catalogue data identifies no version-specific advantage in suspension layout, braking type, or ground clearance.
Lancia A 112 problems and reliability
No fault-frequency, repair, service-life, or reliability measurements are provided for the 0.9 MT, 1.0 MT, or 1.1 MT. It would therefore be unsupported to call any version more reliable or to list model-specific problems.
The measurable differences relevant to a mechanical comparison are limited to the powertrain data. The 0.9 MT has Central injection (single-point or single- point) and a 4-speed Manual gearbox. The 1.0 MT combines a Carburetor with a 4-speed Manual gearbox, while the 1.1 MT combines a Carburetor with a 5-speed Manual gearbox. All are naturally aspirated, 4-cylinder Inline Gasoline versions with RWD.
Which Lancia A 112 version should you buy?
Choose the 0.9 MT when measured performance data matters more than maximum output. It is the only version for which the catalogue provides 62 Nm at 3000 rpm, an 18.6-second 0–100 km/h time, and a 130 km/h top speed. It also matches the 1.0 MT for the lowest kerb weight at 670 kg. Its trade-off is the lowest output, at 42 hp from 903 cc, and the highest calculated weight per horsepower, at about 16.0 kg/hp.
Choose the 1.0 MT when you want more power without more listed weight. Its 48 hp represents a 6 hp, or approximately 14.3%, increase over the 0.9 MT, while kerb weight remains 670 kg. Displacement rises from 903 cc to 965 cc, and the gearbox remains a 4-speed Manual. However, torque, acceleration, and top speed are not measured, so the specification sheet cannot quantify how the extra power changes real-world performance.
Choose the 1.1 MT when power and gearbox specification are the priorities. It produces 70 hp from 1050 cc and is the only version with a 5-speed Manual gearbox. Although it weighs 30 kg more than the other two, its calculated 10.0 kg/hp is clearly better than the approximately 14.0 kg/hp of the 1.0 MT and 16.0 kg/hp of the 0.9 MT. Its output is also 22 hp higher than the 1.0 MT and 28 hp higher than the 0.9 MT.
On the supplied figures alone, the 1.1 MT is the strongest specification-led choice because it offers the most power, the highest calculated power per litre, the best calculated weight per horsepower, and an additional transmission ratio. The 1.0 MT is the balanced alternative because it improves power over the 0.9 MT with no listed weight penalty. The 0.9 MT remains the most transparent choice for buyers who prefer measured performance figures rather than estimates derived from power and weight. Price data is not provided, so the extra money required for any version—and its resulting value—cannot be measured.