Which Trevi version to buy
Start from the three power steps, then pick the gearbox. All six versions are Gasoline, 4 Inline, boost No, FWD, ground clearance 130 mm, gross weight 1665 kg, front suspension Independent, spring, front and rear brakes Disc. Fuel tank, CO2, eco class, city/highway/combined consumption, wheels, and rear suspension are not measured on every version. Automatic kerb weight is not measured.
Start from the three power steps, then pick the gearbox. All six versions are Gasoline, 4 Inline, boost No, FWD, ground clearance 130 mm, gross weight 1665 kg, front suspension Independent, spring, front and rear brakes Disc. Fuel tank, CO2, eco class, city/highway/combined consumption, wheels, and rear suspension are not measured on every version. Automatic kerb weight is not measured. That is the whole common chassis: the buy is engine, injection or carburetor, and Manual 5 versus Automatic 4.
1.6 MT is the lightest-feeling step you can actually weigh: 101 hp (74 kW) at 5800 rpm, 137 Nm, 1585 cm³, compression 9.4, bore × stroke 84 × 71.5, fuel 95, engine location Central, top speed 170 km/h, kerb 1165 kg. Power per litre is 101 ÷ 1.585 ≈ 63.7 hp/l. Weight per horsepower is 1165 ÷ 101 ≈ 11.5 kg/hp. 0–100 km/h is not measured. If you want the smallest engine and a measured kerb, this is the only 1.6 that gives you both.
1.6 AT keeps 101 hp, 74 kW at 5800 rpm, 137 Nm, 1585 cm³, Gasoline, 4 Inline, No, Central, compression 9.4, 84 × 71.5, fuel 95, FWD, clearance 130 mm, gross 1665 kg. The gearbox is Automatic 4, not Manual 5. Top speed is not measured. Kerb weight is not measured. Torque rpm is listed as —. You do not buy a different engine; you buy four automatic ratios and you lose the 170 km/h and 1165 kg figures that exist only on 1.6 MT.
2.0 MT (122 hp) is the first 1995 cm³ step: 122 hp (90 kW) at 5500 rpm, 178 Nm at 2800 rpm, Front, transverse, Distributed injection (multi-point), compression 8.9, 84 × 90, fuel 95, Manual 5, 0–100 in 10.4 s, top speed 180 km/h, kerb 1165 kg. Versus 1.6 MT that is +21 hp (+20.8%), +41 Nm, +410 cm³, stroke 90 mm instead of 71.5 mm, injection instead of an unspecified 1.6 feed, and +10 km/h on top speed. Power per litre falls to 122 ÷ 1.995 ≈ 61.2 hp/l — less specific output than the 1.6, more torque and a measured 10.4 s. Same 1165 kg kerb as 1.6 MT, so weight per horsepower improves to 1165 ÷ 122 ≈ 9.5 kg/hp.
2.0 AT (122 hp) is the same 122 hp / 90 kW / 178 Nm / 1995 cm³ / Distributed injection (multi-point) / fuel 95 engine with Automatic 4. 0–100 km/h is not measured. Top speed is not measured. Kerb is not measured. The extra cost of the automatic, in this dataset, buys four ratios and deletes every performance and kerb number that 2.0 MT (122 hp) publishes.
2.0 MT (135 hp) is the other 1995 cm³ Manual, not a second copy of the 122 hp car: 135 hp (99 kW), rpm not measured, torque not measured, Carburetor, compression 8.9, 84 × 90, fuel 92, Front, transverse, 0–100 in 9.6 s, top speed 190 km/h, kerb 1165 kg. Versus 2.0 MT (122 hp): +13 hp (+10.7%), Carburetor instead of Distributed injection (multi-point), 92 instead of 95, 0–100 0.8 s quicker (9.6 vs 10.4), top speed +10 km/h (190 vs 180). Power per litre is 135 ÷ 1.995 ≈ 67.7 hp/l — the highest of the three engine steps. Weight per horsepower is 1165 ÷ 135 ≈ 8.6 kg/hp, the lowest (best) measured. You give up a published 178 Nm @ 2800 rpm and multi-point injection; you gain 13 hp, 0.8 s, 10 km/h, and 92 fuel.
2.0 AT (135 hp) is that same 135 hp / 99 kW / 1995 cm³ / Carburetor / fuel 92 package with Automatic 4. 0–100 is not measured. Top speed is not measured. Kerb is not measured. Same pattern as the other automatics: the engine step is real; the automatic deletes the 9.6 s / 190 km/h / 1165 kg evidence.
Specs table (all six versions)
| Version | hp | Nm | cm³ | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6 MT | 101 | 137 | 1585 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
| 1.6 AT | 101 | 137 | 1585 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (122 hp) | 122 | 178 | 1995 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (122 hp) | 122 | 178 | 1995 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (135 hp) | 135 | not measured | 1995 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (135 hp) | 135 | not measured | 1995 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
Generations: what changed (and what did not)
There is 1 generation, 1980-01-01 to 1984-12-31, Sedan, 6 versions. There is no later generation to compare, so “which generation” is not a Trevi question. Every version shares the same production window. Restyling is not listed as a separate generation. What you choose is not year of facelift; it is which of the six rows above.
What did not change between versions, in this data: body Sedan, FWD, 4 Inline, Gasoline, boost No, clearance 130 mm, gross 1665 kg, front Independent, spring, brakes Disc / Disc. Automatics are always 4 speeds; manuals are always 5. Engine location is the split that does change: Central on both 1.6 versions, Front, transverse on all four 2.0 versions.
Engine comparison: 1.6 vs two 2.0 tunes
1.6 (101 hp) — 1585 cm³, 101 hp at 5800 rpm, 137 Nm, compression 9.4, 84 × 71.5, fuel 95, Central. Shortest stroke in the catalogue (71.5 mm). Highest compression (9.4 vs 8.9 on every 2.0). Specific output 63.7 hp/l sits between the two 2.0 tunes.
2.0 injection (122 hp) — 1995 cm³, 122 hp at 5500 rpm, 178 Nm at 2800 rpm, compression 8.9, 84 × 90, fuel 95, Front, transverse, Distributed injection (multi-point). Same 84 mm bore as the 1.6; stroke grows 18.5 mm (90 − 71.5). Peak power arrives 300 rpm earlier than the 1.6 (5500 vs 5800). This is the only engine with a measured torque peak rpm.
2.0 carburetor (135 hp) — 1995 cm³, 135 hp (99 kW), power rpm not measured, torque not measured, Carburetor, 8.9, 84 × 90, fuel 92, Front, transverse. Same displacement and geometry as the 122 hp 2.0, +13 hp, different fuel (92 vs 95) and different feed (Carburetor vs Distributed injection (multi-point)). Highest specific output (67.7 hp/l).
Displacement gap 1.6 → 2.0 is 410 cm³. Power gaps: +21 hp then +13 hp. kW gaps: 74 → 90 → 99 (+16 kW, then +9 kW). Compression drops 0.5 (9.4 → 8.9) when you leave the 1.6.
Performance and economy: measured vs not measured
0–100 km/h is measured on two versions only: 2.0 MT (122 hp) 10.4 s and 2.0 MT (135 hp) 9.6 s. Difference: 0.8 s. For 1.6 MT, 1.6 AT, 2.0 AT (122 hp), and 2.0 AT (135 hp), 0–100 is not measured. Do not treat a missing sprint as “slow”; it is unpublished.
Top speed is measured on three manuals: 1.6 MT 170 km/h, 2.0 MT (122 hp) 180 km/h, 2.0 MT (135 hp) 190 km/h. Equal 10 km/h steps. All three Automatic versions: top speed not measured.
Fuel consumption (city, highway, combined), CO2, and eco class: not measured on all six. There is no mpg figure in the source, so there is no economy ranking — only the fuel grade: 95 on 101 hp and 122 hp versions, 92 on both 135 hp versions.
Dimensions and weight
Kerb 1165 kg is measured on 1.6 MT, 2.0 MT (122 hp), and 2.0 MT (135 hp). All three Automatics: kerb not measured. You cannot claim the AT is heavier; you can only say the number is missing.
Gross 1665 kg on all six. Payload on the three manuals with kerb 1165 is 1665 − 1165 = 500 kg. Automatic payload cannot be calculated (kerb not measured).
Ground clearance 130 mm on all six. Tank not measured on all six. Wheel sizes not measured on all six. Rear suspension not measured on all six.
Weight per horsepower (where kerb exists): 1.6 MT ≈ 11.5 kg/hp, 2.0 MT (122 hp) ≈ 9.5 kg/hp, 2.0 MT (135 hp) ≈ 8.6 kg/hp. The 135 hp manual is the lightest per hp on paper; the 1.6 manual carries about 3 kg more per hp than the 135 hp manual (11.5 − 8.6 ≈ 2.9 kg/hp).
What the extra displacement and extra gearbox actually buy
There are no prices in this dataset. “What the extra money buys” here means what the next row adds in published numbers.
Leaving 1.6 MT for 2.0 MT (122 hp) buys 21 hp, 41 Nm, a 2800 rpm torque point, multi-point injection, Front, transverse instead of Central, 10.4 s 0–100 (which the 1.6 does not publish), and 180 vs 170 km/h. Same 1165 kg, same 5-speed Manual, same FWD, same 130 mm, same 1665 kg gross. You lose 0.5 compression and 2.5 hp/l of specific output.
Leaving 2.0 MT (122 hp) for 2.0 MT (135 hp) buys 13 hp, 0.8 s, 10 km/h, 92 fuel, and Carburetor. You lose the 178 Nm @ 2800 rpm line and Distributed injection (multi-point). Same 1995 cm³, same 84 × 90, same 8.9, same 1165 kg.
Leaving any MT for the matching AT buys Automatic 4 and loses: measured top speed (all AT), measured 0–100 (all AT), and measured kerb (all AT). Engine, fuel, cylinders, layout, boost, drive, clearance, and gross do not change inside each pair.
Decision rule (using only these numbers)
- Need a published kerb, a published top speed, and a 5-speed: only the three manuals — 1.6 MT, 2.0 MT (122 hp), 2.0 MT (135 hp).
- Need a published 0–100: only 2.0 MT (122 hp) at 10.4 s or 2.0 MT (135 hp) at 9.6 s.
- Need measured torque: 1.6 MT / 1.6 AT (137 Nm) or the 122 hp 2.0 pair (178 Nm). Both 135 hp versions: torque not measured.
- Need 95 fuel and injection: 2.0 MT (122 hp) or 2.0 AT (122 hp).
- Need 92 fuel and Carburetor plus the highest hp: 2.0 MT (135 hp) or 2.0 AT (135 hp).
- Need Automatic 4: 1.6 AT, 2.0 AT (122 hp), or 2.0 AT (135 hp) — accept that 0–100, top speed, and kerb are not measured on those three.
- Smallest engine, Central layout, highest compression (9.4): 1.6 MT or 1.6 AT.
If the goal is the strongest measured sprint and top speed in this generation, 2.0 MT (135 hp) is the only row that publishes both 9.6 s and 190 km/h. If the goal is the only 2.0 with injection, a torque peak, and a measured 10.4 s, 2.0 MT (122 hp) is the row. If the goal is 1585 cm³ and a number you can weigh, 1.6 MT is the row. The three Automatics do not add a second generation or a different body; they add Automatic 4 and subtract the performance and kerb figures the manuals carry.