Nissan Clipper Rio: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Nissan Clipper Rio choice comes down to engine output, transmission, drive system, production period, and kerb weight. The original first-generation Minivan, produced from 2003 to 2006, offers four naturally aspirated 0.7 MT and 0.7 AT configurations.
The Nissan Clipper Rio choice comes down to engine output, transmission, drive system, production period, and kerb weight. The original first-generation Minivan, produced from 2003 to 2006, offers four naturally aspirated 0.7 MT and 0.7 AT configurations. The restyled first generation, produced from 2007 to 2012, expands the range to eight configurations and adds 64 hp Turbo versions alongside the 48 hp naturally aspirated models. Buyers prioritizing stronger power-to-weight figures should focus on the restyled 64 hp versions; buyers who prefer the lightest configuration should consider the 48 hp 0.7 MT with RWD and a kerb weight of 890 kg.
Nissan Clipper Rio generations compared
The first generation ran from 2003 to 2006 as a Minivan with four versions. Every version used a 657 cc Gasoline Inline 3-cylinder engine with distributed injection (multi-point), producing 48 hp at 6000 rpm and 62 Nm at 4000 rpm. The choices were 0.7 MT or 0.7 AT, each available with RWD or AWD. The Manual transmission had 5 gears, while the Automatic had 4 gears.
The restyled first generation ran from 2007 to 2012 and remained a Minivan, but the range increased to eight versions. It retained the 48 hp, 62 Nm naturally aspirated engine choices and added Turbo configurations producing 64 hp at 6000 rpm and 86 Nm at 3000 rpm. That is an increase of 16 hp and 24 Nm, while peak torque arrives 1000 rpm earlier. Both outputs were offered as 0.7 MT and 0.7 AT versions with either RWD or AWD.
The clearest documented change after the restyling is therefore the broader engine selection. The earlier generation lists only 48 hp versions, whereas the restyled range provides both 48 hp and 64 hp alternatives. Front brakes also changed in the supplied specifications: the 2003–2006 versions use Disc front brakes, while the 2007–2012 versions use Ventilated disc front brakes. Both periods use Drum rear brakes and an Independent, spring front suspension.
Nissan Clipper Rio engine and specifications
Because several configurations share the exact names 0.7 MT and 0.7 AT, the table distinguishes them by production period, power, and drive system.
| Production period and version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003–2006 0.7 MT, RWD | 48 hp | 62 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | RWD |
| 2003–2006 0.7 MT, AWD | 48 hp | 62 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | AWD |
| 2003–2006 0.7 AT, RWD | 48 hp | 62 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | Automatic, 4 gears | RWD |
| 2003–2006 0.7 AT, AWD | 48 hp | 62 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | Automatic, 4 gears | AWD |
| 2007–2012 0.7 MT, 48 hp, RWD | 48 hp | 62 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | RWD |
| 2007–2012 0.7 MT, 48 hp, AWD | 48 hp | 62 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | Manual, 5 gears | AWD |
| 2007–2012 0.7 AT, 48 hp, RWD | 48 hp | 62 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | Automatic, 4 gears | RWD |
| 2007–2012 0.7 AT, 48 hp, AWD | 48 hp | 62 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | No | Automatic, 4 gears | AWD |
| 2007–2012 0.7 MT, 64 hp, RWD | 64 hp | 86 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5 gears | RWD |
| 2007–2012 0.7 MT, 64 hp, AWD | 64 hp | 86 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5 gears | AWD |
| 2007–2012 0.7 AT, 64 hp, RWD | 64 hp | 86 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | Turbo | Automatic, 4 gears | RWD |
| 2007–2012 0.7 AT, 64 hp, AWD | 64 hp | 86 Nm | 657 cc | Gasoline | 3 | Inline | Turbo | Automatic, 4 gears | AWD |
All versions require 95 fuel and have a 40-litre tank. The 48 hp engine delivers approximately 73.1 hp per litre, while the 64 hp Turbo engine delivers approximately 97.4 hp per litre. The Turbo version therefore provides about 24.4 more hp per litre from the same 657 cc displacement.
Performance, fuel consumption and mpg
The supplied data does not include acceleration from 0–100 km/h for any 0.7 MT or 0.7 AT version, so acceleration is not measured. Top speed is also not measured for every version.
City fuel consumption is not measured, highway fuel consumption is not measured, and combined fuel consumption is not measured for all configurations. Consequently, an mpg figure and a calculated driving range cannot be stated from the available data. CO2 output is not measured, and the emissions class is not measured.
The engine figures still permit a direct comparison. Naturally aspirated versions produce 48 hp at 6000 rpm and 62 Nm at 4000 rpm. Turbo versions produce 64 hp at 6000 rpm and 86 Nm at 3000 rpm. The Turbo engine has 33.3% more power and approximately 38.7% more torque than the naturally aspirated engine.
Dimensions, weight and ground clearance
Exterior dimensions are not measured in the supplied specifications. Gross weight is not measured, and wheel sizes are not measured for every version. Ground clearance is 150 mm throughout the range, and fuel-tank capacity is 40 litres.
Kerb weight varies with transmission, drive, and engine output:
| Production period and version | Kerb weight | Weight per horsepower |
|---|---|---|
| 2003–2006 0.7 MT, RWD | 890 kg | 18.5 kg/hp |
| 2003–2006 0.7 AT, RWD | 910 kg | 19.0 kg/hp |
| 2003–2006 0.7 MT, AWD | 950 kg | 19.8 kg/hp |
| 2003–2006 0.7 AT, AWD | 970 kg | 20.2 kg/hp |
| 2007–2012 0.7 MT, 48 hp, RWD | 890 kg | 18.5 kg/hp |
| 2007–2012 0.7 AT, 48 hp, RWD | 910 kg | 19.0 kg/hp |
| 2007–2012 0.7 MT, 48 hp, AWD | 950 kg | 19.8 kg/hp |
| 2007–2012 0.7 AT, 48 hp, AWD | 970 kg | 20.2 kg/hp |
| 2007–2012 0.7 MT, 64 hp, RWD | 980 kg | 15.3 kg/hp |
| 2007–2012 0.7 AT, 64 hp, RWD | 1000 kg | 15.6 kg/hp |
| 2007–2012 0.7 MT, 64 hp, AWD | 1040 kg | 16.3 kg/hp |
| 2007–2012 0.7 AT, 64 hp, AWD | 1050 kg | 16.4 kg/hp |
Within the 48 hp range, choosing AWD adds 60 kg to either the 0.7 MT or 0.7 AT. Choosing the Automatic instead of the Manual adds 20 kg with the same drive system. Among the 64 hp Turbo versions, the RWD 0.7 AT is 20 kg heavier than the RWD 0.7 MT, while the AWD 0.7 AT is 10 kg heavier than the AWD 0.7 MT.
Which Nissan Clipper Rio version should you buy?
For the strongest power-to-weight result, the 2007–2012 0.7 MT with 64 hp and RWD is the leading choice. Its 980 kg kerb weight works out to approximately 15.3 kg/hp, the best figure in the supplied range. It combines the Turbo engine’s 86 Nm at 3000 rpm with the 5-gear Manual transmission.
For buyers wanting the 64 hp Turbo engine with an Automatic, the RWD 0.7 AT weighs 1000 kg and provides approximately 15.6 kg/hp. The AWD 0.7 AT weighs 1050 kg and provides approximately 16.4 kg/hp. Choosing RWD in this comparison removes 50 kg while keeping the same 64 hp, 86 Nm engine and 4-gear Automatic transmission.
For the lowest kerb weight, choose a 48 hp 0.7 MT with RWD. This configuration weighs 890 kg in both the 2003–2006 and 2007–2012 data. Its weight-to-power figure is approximately 18.5 kg/hp. Moving from that version to the equivalent AWD 0.7 MT adds 60 kg without changing the 48 hp or 62 Nm outputs.
For AWD with the better power-to-weight figure, the restyled 64 hp 0.7 MT is preferable numerically to the 64 hp 0.7 AT: the Manual weighs 1040 kg and provides approximately 16.3 kg/hp, while the Automatic weighs 1050 kg and provides approximately 16.4 kg/hp. Both have 86 Nm, Turbo boost, and AWD.
There is no supplied price information for Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Karachi, or any other market, and there are no sale listings in the data. Reliability and problem records are also not measured. A buying decision should therefore be based on the documented specification differences: 48 hp or 64 hp, No boost or Turbo, Manual or Automatic, RWD or AWD, kerb weight, and production period.