Lotus Eclat: which version to buy
If you want the only version with a measured 0–100 km/h time, buy 2.2 MT. It is the 2.2-litre Manual 5, RWD Coupe: 162 hp (119 kW) at 6500 rpm, 217 Nm at 5000 rpm, 2174 cm³ Gasoline, Inline 4, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, compression 9.5, 8.3 s to 100 km/h, 212 km/h top speed, kerb weight 1102 kg, tank 67 l, ground clearance 104 mm.
If you want the only version with a measured 0–100 km/h time, buy 2.2 MT. It is the 2.2-litre Manual 5, RWD Coupe: 162 hp (119 kW) at 6500 rpm, 217 Nm at 5000 rpm, 2174 cm³ Gasoline, Inline 4, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, compression 9.5, 8.3 s to 100 km/h, 212 km/h top speed, kerb weight 1102 kg, tank 67 l, ground clearance 104 mm.
If you want the lightest measured kerb weight and the highest specific output, buy 2.0 MT. Same 162 hp (119 kW) as every other Eclat, but at 6200 rpm from 1973 cm³, 190 Nm at 4900 rpm, Manual 5, RWD, 210 km/h top speed, kerb weight 1055 kg. 0–100 km/h is not measured.
Buy 2.0 AT or 2.2 AT only if a 3-speed Automatic is the point of the car. Both Automatics share the same 162 hp as the manuals of their displacement; top speed, 0–100 km/h, and kerb weight are not measured on either Automatic.
There is one generation, so there is no “later generation” to wait for. The choice is engine size (1973 vs 2174 cm³), gearbox (Manual 5 vs Automatic 3), and which figures were actually measured.
Specs that are the same on every version
All four versions are Gasoline, Inline 4, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, RWD, Independent spring front and rear, Disc front brakes, Drum rear brakes, 67 l tank, 104 mm ground clearance. Peak power is 162 hp (119 kW) on 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.2 MT, and 2.2 AT. Wheel size, fuel consumption, CO2, eco class, and gross weight are not measured on any version.
That sameness is the buying problem: 162 hp does not tell you which car you are looking at. Displacement, torque, rpm, gearbox, and which performance numbers exist do.
Engine comparison: 2.0 vs 2.2
2.0 MT and 2.0 AT use 1973 cm³, 95.2 × 69.3 mm bore × stroke, 162 hp at 6200 rpm, 190 Nm at 4900 rpm. Compression is not measured.
2.2 MT and 2.2 AT use 2174 cm³, 95.3 × 76.2 mm, 162 hp at 6500 rpm, 217 Nm at 5000 rpm, compression 9.5.
Displacement rises by 201 cm³ (about 10.2%). Torque rises by 27 Nm (about 14.2%). Peak power does not rise at all. Peak power arrives 300 rpm later on the 2.2 (6500 vs 6200). Peak torque arrives 100 rpm later (5000 vs 4900).
Specific output:
- 2.0 MT / 2.0 AT: 162 hp / 1.973 l ≈ 82.1 hp per litre
- 2.2 MT / 2.2 AT: 162 hp / 2.174 l ≈ 74.5 hp per litre
The 2.0 is the more highly stressed engine on a per-litre basis. The 2.2 is the engine that makes more torque from a longer stroke (76.2 mm vs 69.3 mm) at the same 162 hp. If “more litres” in your head means “more horsepower,” these numbers do not support that. What the extra 201 cm³ buys is 27 Nm and, on 2.2 MT only, a measured 8.3 s 0–100 km/h and 212 km/h top speed.
Gearbox: Manual 5 vs Automatic 3
2.0 MT and 2.2 MT are Manual 5. 2.0 AT and 2.2 AT are Automatic 3.
That is not a one-ratio difference. The Automatics have two fewer forward gears. There is no measured 0–100 km/h or top speed on 2.0 AT or 2.2 AT, so you cannot claim the Automatic is slower from these data — only that those figures are not measured. Kerb weight is also not measured on either Automatic, so you cannot say how much the 3-speed box adds versus 2.0 MT (1055 kg) or 2.2 MT (1102 kg).
If you want a documented top speed, you are choosing between 2.0 MT (210 km/h) and 2.2 MT (212 km/h). If you want a documented sprint, only 2.2 MT (8.3 s) exists. The Automatics are the versions where those buyer questions stay unanswered in this catalogue.
Performance and economy: what is measured
0–100 km/h:
- 2.2 MT: 8.3 s
- 2.0 MT: not measured
- 2.0 AT: not measured
- 2.2 AT: not measured
Top speed:
- 2.0 MT: 210 km/h
- 2.2 MT: 212 km/h (2 km/h more than 2.0 MT)
- 2.0 AT: not measured
- 2.2 AT: not measured
City, highway, and combined fuel consumption: not measured on 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.2 MT, or 2.2 AT. MPG and l/100 km cannot be ranked from this data. Tank volume is 67 l on all four, so range is unknown until consumption is measured.
Do not infer 2.0 MT 0–100 km/h from the 2.2 figure. 2.0 MT is 47 kg lighter (1055 vs 1102 kg) and 27 Nm down; the sprint is not measured.
Dimensions, weight, and kg per hp
Ground clearance is 104 mm on every version. Tank is 67 l on every version. Wheel sizes are not measured. Gross weight is not measured.
Kerb weight:
- 2.0 MT: 1055 kg
- 2.2 MT: 1102 kg (47 kg more, about 4.5%)
- 2.0 AT: not measured
- 2.2 AT: not measured
Weight per horsepower (measured kerb only):
- 2.0 MT: 1055 / 162 ≈ 6.51 kg per hp
- 2.2 MT: 1102 / 162 ≈ 6.80 kg per hp
2.0 MT is the better power-to-weight number because mass is lower and power is identical. 2.2 MT carries 47 kg more for the same 162 hp and for 27 Nm extra. If you care about how little mass sits on each horsepower, 2.0 MT wins the arithmetic. If you care about a published 8.3 s 0–100 km/h, 2.2 MT is the only version that has that number.
Version-by-version specs (anchors)
| Version | hp | Nm | cm³ | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 162 | 190 | 1973 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual 5 | RWD |
| 2.0 AT | 162 | 190 | 1973 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Automatic 3 | RWD |
| 2.2 MT | 162 | 217 | 2174 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual 5 | RWD |
| 2.2 AT | 162 | 217 | 2174 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Automatic 3 | RWD |
2.0 MT — 162 hp (119 kW) at 6200 rpm, 190 Nm at 4900 rpm, 1973 cm³ Gasoline, Inline 4, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, bore × stroke 95.2 × 69.3, compression not measured, 0–100 km/h not measured, 210 km/h, Manual 5, RWD, tank 67 l, kerb 1055 kg, gross not measured, clearance 104 mm, wheels not measured.
2.0 AT — same 1973 cm³ engine numbers as 2.0 MT (162 hp at 6200 rpm, 190 Nm at 4900 rpm). Automatic 3, RWD. Top speed not measured, 0–100 km/h not measured, kerb weight not measured, tank 67 l, clearance 104 mm.
2.2 MT — 162 hp (119 kW) at 6500 rpm, 217 Nm at 5000 rpm, 2174 cm³ Gasoline, Inline 4, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, compression 9.5, 95.3 × 76.2, 8.3 s 0–100 km/h, 212 km/h, Manual 5, RWD, tank 67 l, kerb 1102 kg, gross not measured, clearance 104 mm, wheels not measured.
2.2 AT — same 2174 cm³ engine numbers as 2.2 MT (162 hp at 6500 rpm, 217 Nm at 5000 rpm, compression 9.5). Automatic 3, RWD. Top speed not measured, 0–100 km/h not measured, kerb weight not measured, tank 67 l, clearance 104 mm.
What the “extra” 2.2 actually buys
Against 2.0 MT, 2.2 MT buys:
- +201 cm³
- +27 Nm
- +300 rpm on the power peak
- +100 rpm on the torque peak
- compression listed (9.5 vs not measured on the 2.0)
- +2 km/h top speed (212 vs 210)
- a measured 8.3 s 0–100 km/h (vs not measured)
- +47 kg kerb weight
- worse kg/hp (6.80 vs 6.51)
- worse hp/litre (74.5 vs 82.1)
There is no price in this catalogue, so “extra money” is not a number here. On the spec sheet, the extra displacement does not buy extra horsepower. It buys torque, a documented sprint, 2 km/h of top speed, and 47 kg.
Against 2.2 MT, 2.2 AT buys Automatic 3 and loses every measured performance and mass figure (not measured). Against 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT is the same trade: Automatic 3, no measured top speed, no measured 0–100, no measured kerb.
Reliability, problems, mpg
This dataset does not list faults, reliability scores, or fuel consumption. mpg is not measured. Problems and reliability cannot be ranked between 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.2 MT, and 2.2 AT from these figures. What you can compare is mechanical layout: all four are Carburetor Gasoline Inline 4, RWD, Disc/Drum, Independent spring both ends. Differences that do exist are displacement, torque, gearbox type and ratio count, and which performance/weight cells are filled in.
Decision in one pass
- Documented 0–100 km/h: 2.2 MT only (8.3 s).
- Documented top speed and lowest measured mass: 2.0 MT (210 km/h, 1055 kg) unless you accept 47 kg more for 212 km/h on 2.2 MT.
- Highest hp per litre and lowest kg per hp among measured kerbs: 2.0 MT.
- Highest torque: 2.2 MT and 2.2 AT (217 Nm).
- Automatic: 2.0 AT or 2.2 AT; pick 1973 cm³ / 190 Nm vs 2174 cm³ / 217 Nm, knowing sprint, top speed, and kerb are not measured on either.
- Generations: one (1975–1986), Coupe, four versions. Nothing later in this model line changes the chassis type or the 162 hp ceiling.
Pick 2.2 MT for the only complete performance row. Pick 2.0 MT for the lightest measured Coupe at the same 162 hp. Pick an Automatic only if three speeds matter more than the missing 0–100, top speed, and weight numbers.