Lancia Lybra: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Lancia Lybra was offered in one generation from 1999 to 2006, with a Sedan body and 12 listed versions. Choosing among them comes down to three priorities: performance, fuel consumption, or transmission type. The quickest listed car is the 135 hp 2.4 MT, reaching 100 km/h in 9 seconds, while the highest top speed belongs to the 150 hp 2.4 MT at 212 km/h.
The Lancia Lybra was offered in one generation from 1999 to 2006, with a Sedan body and 12 listed versions. Choosing among them comes down to three priorities: performance, fuel consumption, or transmission type. The quickest listed car is the 135 hp 2.4 MT, reaching 100 km/h in 9 seconds, while the highest top speed belongs to the 150 hp 2.4 MT at 212 km/h. For measured economy, the 105 hp and 110 hp 1.9 MT versions both record 5.9 l/100 km combined. Buyers wanting an Automatic have only the 2.0 AT gasoline versions, offered with 150 hp or 154 hp.
Lancia Lybra generations and versions
There is one Lancia Lybra generation in the supplied catalogue: the 1 generation, produced from 1999 through 2006. It uses a Sedan body and contains 12 versions. Because there is no second generation in the data, the buying decision is entirely between engines, outputs, transmissions, and recorded performance figures within this generation.
Several names occur more than once, so power is essential when identifying a car. The three 1.9 MT diesels produce 105 hp, 110 hp, or 115 hp. The three 2.4 MT diesels include two 135 hp entries and one 150 hp entry. The 2.0 MT appears with 150 hp and 154 hp, while the 2.0 AT appears with the same two outputs.
Lancia Lybra engine and specs comparison
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6 MT | 103 hp | 145 Nm | 1581 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.8 MT | 131 hp | 164 Nm | 1747 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (150 hp) | 150 hp | 186 Nm | 1998 cc | Gasoline | 5, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.9 MT (105 hp) | 105 hp | 255 Nm | 1910 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.9 MT (115 hp) | 115 hp | 275 Nm | 1910 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.4 MT (150 hp) | 150 hp | 308 Nm | 2387 cc | Diesel | 5, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (150 hp) | 150 hp | 181 Nm | 1998 cc | Gasoline | 5, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.4 MT (135 hp, 1370 kg) | 135 hp | 304 Nm | 2387 cc | Diesel | 5, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 1.9 MT (110 hp) | 110 hp | 275 Nm | 1910 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (154 hp) | 154 hp | 186 Nm | 1998 cc | Gasoline | 5, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (154 hp) | 154 hp | 186 Nm | 1998 cc | Gasoline | 5, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.4 MT (135 hp, 1410 kg) | 135 hp | 304 Nm | 2387 cc | Diesel | 5, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
The 1.8 MT has the highest specific output among the listed engines at approximately 75 hp per litre. The 154 hp 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT follow at about 77 hp per litre, slightly above the 150 hp 2.0 versions at about 75 hp per litre. The 150 hp 2.4 MT produces about 63 hp per litre, but its 308 Nm is the highest torque figure in the range.
The 1.6 MT has the lowest torque at 145 Nm. Moving to the 1.8 MT adds 28 hp and 19 Nm. The 150 hp 2.0 MT adds another 19 hp and 22 Nm over the 1.8 MT. On the diesel side, the 115 hp 1.9 MT provides 10 hp and 20 Nm more than the 105 hp 1.9 MT, while the 110 hp version matches the 115 hp car’s 275 Nm but has 5 hp less.
Lancia Lybra performance and fuel economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6 MT | 11.3 s | 185 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.8 MT | 10.3 s | 201 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 MT (150 hp) | 9.6 s | 210 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 1.9 MT (105 hp) | 11.3 s | 185 km/h | 8.1 l/100 km | 4.7 l/100 km | 5.9 l/100 km |
| 1.9 MT (115 hp) | 11 s | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.4 MT (150 hp) | 9.4 s | 212 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 AT (150 hp) | 11.7 s | 205 km/h | 14.1 l/100 km | 8.3 l/100 km | 10.4 l/100 km |
| 2.4 MT (135 hp, 1370 kg) | 9 s | 200 km/h | 6.9 l/100 km | 5.5 l/100 km | 9.2 l/100 km |
| 1.9 MT (110 hp) | 11.3 s | 187 km/h | 8.1 l/100 km | 4.7 l/100 km | 5.9 l/100 km |
| 2.0 MT (154 hp) | 9.9 s | 210 km/h | 14.6 l/100 km | 7.3 l/100 km | 10 l/100 km |
| 2.0 AT (154 hp) | 12 s | 205 km/h | 14.2 l/100 km | 8.4 l/100 km | 10.5 l/100 km |
| 2.4 MT (135 hp, 1410 kg) | 10.3 s | 200 km/h | 9.2 l/100 km | 5.5 l/100 km | 6.9 l/100 km |
For outright acceleration, the 1370 kg, 135 hp 2.4 MT records 9 seconds to 100 km/h. It is 0.4 seconds quicker than the more powerful 150 hp 2.4 MT, although the 150 hp car has a 12 km/h higher top speed. The second 135 hp 2.4 MT, identified by its 1410 kg kerb weight, takes 10.3 seconds, making the distinction between the two identically named and powered entries important.
Among the gasoline Manual versions, the 150 hp 2.0 MT is quickest at 9.6 seconds. The 154 hp 2.0 MT takes 9.9 seconds despite having 4 hp more. The 1.8 MT is 1 second quicker to 100 km/h and 16 km/h faster at maximum speed than the 1.6 MT.
The Automatic carries a clear acceleration trade-off. The 150 hp 2.0 AT takes 11.7 seconds, which is 2.1 seconds slower than the 150 hp 2.0 MT. The 154 hp 2.0 AT takes 12 seconds, 2.1 seconds slower than its 154 hp Manual counterpart. Both Automatic versions reach 205 km/h, versus 210 km/h for both Manual 2.0 versions.
For economy based strictly on measured figures, the 105 hp and 110 hp 1.9 MT versions are the strongest choices: each records 8.1 l/100 km in the city, 4.7 l/100 km on the highway, and 5.9 l/100 km combined. Consumption for the 115 hp 1.9 MT was not measured. The supplied figures for the 1370 kg, 135 hp 2.4 MT are 6.9 l/100 km city, 5.5 l/100 km highway, and 9.2 l/100 km combined; these values are reported as supplied.
Lancia Lybra dimensions, weight, tank and wheel sizes
All listed versions have 150 mm of ground clearance and a 60-litre fuel tank. Wheel sizes were not measured for every version.
Kerb weight ranges from 1180 kg for the 1.6 MT to 1410 kg for the heavier 135 hp 2.4 MT, a difference of 230 kg. Gross weight ranges from 1770 kg for the 1.6 MT to 1945 kg for the 154 hp 2.0 MT and 154 hp 2.0 AT.
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Weight per hp |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6 MT | 1180 kg | 1770 kg | 11.46 kg/hp |
| 1.8 MT | 1230 kg | 1820 kg | 9.39 kg/hp |
| 2.0 MT (150 hp) | 1330 kg | 1870 kg | 8.87 kg/hp |
| 1.9 MT (105 hp) | 1290 kg | 1830 kg | 12.29 kg/hp |
| 1.9 MT (115 hp) | 1290 kg | 1830 kg | 11.22 kg/hp |
| 2.4 MT (150 hp) | 1350 kg | 1890 kg | 9 kg/hp |
| 2.0 AT (150 hp) | 1355 kg | 1870 kg | 9.03 kg/hp |
| 2.4 MT (135 hp, 1370 kg) | 1370 kg | 1890 kg | 10.15 kg/hp |
| 1.9 MT (110 hp) | 1290 kg | 1830 kg | 11.73 kg/hp |
| 2.0 MT (154 hp) | 1390 kg | 1945 kg | 9.03 kg/hp |
| 2.0 AT (154 hp) | 1395 kg | 1945 kg | 9.06 kg/hp |
| 2.4 MT (135 hp, 1410 kg) | 1410 kg | 1935 kg | 10.44 kg/hp |
The 150 hp 2.0 MT has the best weight-to-power figure at approximately 8.87 kg per hp. The 150 hp 2.4 MT follows at exactly 9 kg per hp. The 1.6 MT is 170 kg lighter than the 150 hp 2.4 MT, but it carries approximately 2.46 kg more for every horsepower.
Which Lancia Lybra version should you choose?
For the best measured fuel economy, choose the 105 hp or 110 hp 1.9 MT. Their recorded consumption is identical, but the 110 hp version has 5 hp and 20 Nm more, along with a top speed that is 2 km/h higher. Their 0–100 km/h time is the same at 11.3 seconds.
For maximum performance, the choice depends on the measure. The 1370 kg, 135 hp 2.4 MT has the quickest 0–100 km/h time at 9 seconds. The 150 hp 2.4 MT provides the highest torque at 308 Nm and the highest speed at 212 km/h, while still reaching 100 km/h in 9.4 seconds.
For gasoline performance with a Manual, the 150 hp 2.0 MT is the most convincing numerical balance. It reaches 100 km/h in 9.6 seconds, has a 210 km/h top speed, and carries 8.87 kg per hp. The 154 hp 2.0 MT has 4 hp more, but it is 60 kg heavier and 0.3 seconds slower to 100 km/h; its measured combined consumption is 10 l/100 km, whereas consumption for the 150 hp version was not measured.
For an Automatic, compare the two 2.0 AT versions carefully. The 154 hp car gains 4 hp and 5 Nm over the 150 hp car, but it is 40 kg heavier, takes 0.3 seconds longer to reach 100 km/h, and records 10.5 rather than 10.4 l/100 km combined. Both reach 205 km/h. On the supplied figures, the 150 hp 2.0 AT is the stronger Automatic choice unless the extra 4 hp and 5 Nm are the priority.
The 1.8 MT is the middle gasoline option: compared with the 1.6 MT, it adds 28 hp and 19 Nm, reduces the 0–100 km/h time by 1 second, and increases top speed by 16 km/h while adding 50 kg. Buyers choosing by the available numbers rather than transmission preference therefore have four clear candidates: the 1.9 MT with 110 hp for measured economy, the 2.0 MT with 150 hp for gasoline performance, the 2.4 MT with 150 hp for torque and top speed, and the 2.0 AT with 150 hp when an Automatic is required.