Mitsuoka Rock Star: which version to buy (1.5 MT vs 1.5 AT)
If you are choosing a Mitsuoka Rock Star, the catalogue gives you one generation (from 2018-10-01, still listed with no end date), one body (Roadster), and two named versions: 1.5 MT and 1.5 AT. They share the same 1496 cm³ Gasoline engine, the same 132 hp and 152 Nm, the same 6-speed layout, the same RWD, the same 40-litre tank, and the same 140 mm ground clearance.
If you are choosing a Mitsuoka Rock Star, the catalogue gives you one generation (from 2018-10-01, still listed with no end date), one body (Roadster), and two named versions: 1.5 MT and 1.5 AT. They share the same 1496 cm³ Gasoline engine, the same 132 hp and 152 Nm, the same 6-speed layout, the same RWD, the same 40-litre tank, and the same 140 mm ground clearance. The measured difference that actually changes the car on the scale is kerb weight: 1.5 MT is 1080 kg, 1.5 AT is 1140 kg — 60 kg more, which is 5.6% heavier and 0.45 kg extra per horsepower. There is no second generation to “step up to,” no restyle listed as a separate generation, and no extra engine family. The buy decision is gearbox plus mass, not a catalogue of engines.
Generations: what actually changed (one generation, two versions)
1 generation (start 2018-10-01, stop not measured) is the whole model history in this dataset: Roadster body, 2 versions. Nothing in the numbers shows a later generation, a facelift as a new generation, or a different displacement. You cannot pick “the newer Rock Star generation” because a second generation is not in the data. You pick 1.5 MT or 1.5 AT inside this one generation.
Both versions start on the same date, 2018-10-01, and both have stop not measured. Production-window arithmetic does not favour one over the other: neither is listed as an early-only or late-only variant.
Specs table: 1.5 MT vs 1.5 AT
| Version | hp | Nm | cm³ | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 MT | 132 | 152 | 1496 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual | RWD |
| 1.5 AT | 132 | 152 | 1496 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Automatic | RWD |
Power is 97 kW at 7000 rpm on both. Torque is 152 Nm at 4500 rpm on both. Compression ratio is 13 on both. Bore and stroke is 74.5 × 85.8 on both. Fuel grade in the data is 98 on both. Feeding is Direct injection (direct) on both. Valves per cylinder: 4 on both. Engine location: not measured on both.
Gearbox is the named split: 1.5 MT is Manual, 6; 1.5 AT is Automatic, 6. Drive is RWD on both. That is the full mechanical fork the names encode.
Engine and power per litre: same engine, so the extra money is not more hp
132 hp from 1496 cm³ is 88.2 hp per litre (132 ÷ 1.496). Both versions sit on that figure. 152 Nm from 1496 cm³ is 101.6 Nm per litre (152 ÷ 1.496). Neither version has a turbo: Boost is No. There is no “hot” Rock Star in this list and no diesel.
If you hoped a higher-output 1.5 AT existed, it does not in this data. Two versions with the same displacement and different power would be distinguished by horsepower in the name; here both are 132 hp. Buying 1.5 AT does not buy more peak power, more peak torque, more cylinders, a different layout, or boost. It buys Automatic and 60 kg.
Weight, kg per hp, and what the extra 60 kg does on paper
1.5 MT: 1080 kg kerb, 132 hp → 8.18 kg per hp (1080 ÷ 132). 1.5 AT: 1140 kg kerb, 132 hp → 8.64 kg per hp (1140 ÷ 132).
The Automatic is 0.45 kg/hp worse (8.64 − 8.18) and 5.6% heavier (60 ÷ 1080). Gross weight is not measured on either, so payload cannot be compared. Ground clearance is 140 mm on both, so ride height is not a reason to switch versions. Tank is 40 litres on both, so range cannot be argued from tank size.
Front brakes are Ventilated disc on both; rear brakes are not measured on both. Front and rear suspension are Independent, spring on both. Wheel sizes are not measured on both. Chassis specification in this dataset does not separate the two cars except by mass.
Performance and mpg: what is not measured (do not infer a winner)
0–100 is not measured for 1.5 MT. 0–100 is not measured for 1.5 AT. Top speed is not measured for 1.5 MT. Top speed is not measured for 1.5 AT. City consumption is not measured for 1.5 MT. City consumption is not measured for 1.5 AT. Highway consumption is not measured for 1.5 MT. Highway consumption is not measured for 1.5 AT. Combined consumption is not measured for 1.5 MT. Combined consumption is not measured for 1.5 AT. CO2 is not measured for both. Eco class is not measured for both.
You cannot rank these versions on acceleration, top speed, or mpg from this catalogue. Weight and gearbox differ; sprint times and fuel use are not given, so any “the Manual is quicker” or “the Automatic uses more fuel” claim would be outside the data. The only arithmetic that is allowed is the 60 kg and the kg/hp gap above.
Dimensions and weight: the measurable fork
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 MT | 1080 kg | not measured | 140 mm | 40 l | not measured |
| 1.5 AT | 1140 kg | not measured | 140 mm | 40 l | not measured |
Wheel sizes not measured means tyre comparison is not available. Clearance 140 mm is identical, so neither version is the “higher” Rock Star. Tank 40 litres is identical.
Which version to choose
Choose 1.5 MT if the numbers you care about are mass and kg per hp. It is the lighter Roadster in this generation: 1080 kg versus 1140 kg, 8.18 kg/hp versus 8.64 kg/hp, same 132 hp, same 152 Nm, same 1496 cm³ Gasoline Inline 4, Boost No, RWD, 6 speeds, 40-litre tank, 140 mm clearance. The name 1.5 MT is Manual. If you want the specification with the better weight-to-power ratio that this dataset actually records, this is the one.
Choose 1.5 AT if the named difference you want is Automatic, and you accept 60 kg. Peak output does not rise: still 132 hp at 7000 rpm and 152 Nm at 4500 rpm. Displacement, cylinders (4), layout (Inline), boost (No), drive (RWD), tank (40 l), and clearance (140 mm) do not change. The extra mass is 60 kg, 5.6% of the Manual’s kerb weight, and 0.45 kg more per horsepower. You are not buying a second engine or a later generation.
Do not choose by generation. There is 1 generation from 2018-10-01 with stop not measured. There is no later Rock Star generation in the data to pay for.
Do not choose by 0–100, top speed, or mpg. Those figures are not measured on either version.
Do not choose by fuel type or octane split. Both are Gasoline, fuel 98.
Do not choose by “more gears.” Both list 6.
Problems and reliability are not in this dataset. This article does not invent failure rates. The comparison that can be written from the numbers is: same engine, same drive, same tank, same clearance, same start date; Manual lighter by 60 kg; Automatic heavier by 60 kg.
Short buyer arithmetic
- Power: 1.5 MT 132 hp = 1.5 AT 132 hp (difference 0 hp).
- Torque: 152 Nm = 152 Nm (difference 0 Nm).
- Displacement: 1496 = 1496.
- Power per litre: 88.2 hp/l on both.
- Kerb: 1140 − 1080 = 60 kg on 1.5 AT.
- kg/hp: 8.18 (1.5 MT) vs 8.64 (1.5 AT).
- Tank: 40 − 40 = 0 l.
- Clearance: 140 − 140 = 0 mm.
- Versions in the generation: 2. Generations: 1.
If the Rock Star you want is the lighter RWD Roadster with Manual, the catalogue name is 1.5 MT. If you want Automatic at the same 132 hp, the catalogue name is 1.5 AT, and the measured cost in this file is 60 kg, not extra horsepower.