Nissan Moco: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Nissan Moco was offered across three generations from April 2002 to May 2016, always as a Mini 5-doors model with a 658 cc Gasoline engine.
The Nissan Moco was offered across three generations from April 2002 to May 2016, always as a Mini 5-doors model with a 658 cc Gasoline engine. Choosing one is primarily a choice between generation, transmission, output and drive: the first and second generations use a 4-speed Automatic, while the third uses a Variable transmission; FWD is lighter and has more ground clearance in most comparable third-generation versions, whereas AWD adds 40–50 kg. Buyers seeking the strongest specification should consider the third-generation turbo 0.7 CVT with 64 hp and 95 Nm. Those prioritizing lower kerb weight can choose the third-generation naturally aspirated 0.7 CVT with 54 hp and FWD, which weighs 790 kg.
Nissan Moco generations compared
The first generation was produced from April 2002 through January 2006. It came exclusively as a Mini 5-doors and included four versions, all named 0.7 AT. The naturally aspirated alternatives produce 54 hp and 63 Nm, while the turbo alternatives deliver 60 hp and 83 Nm. Both outputs are available with FWD or AWD. Every version has a 4-speed Automatic and a 30-litre fuel tank.
The second generation ran from February 2006 to January 2011, retained the Mini 5-doors body and included three versions named 0.7 AT. Its naturally aspirated engine produces 54 hp and 63 Nm and is available with FWD or AWD. The turbo version produces 60 hp and 83 Nm and comes with AWD in the supplied specifications. All three use a 4-speed Automatic and carry 30 litres of fuel.
The third generation was built from February 2011 through May 2016. It remained a Mini 5-doors but expanded to six versions, all named 0.7 CVT. Naturally aspirated choices produce either 52 hp and 63 Nm or 54 hp and 63 Nm; turbo versions make 64 hp and 95 Nm. Each output is listed with both FWD and AWD. The Variable transmission replaces the earlier 4-speed Automatic, and tank capacity falls from 30 litres to 27 litres.
Nissan Moco engine specs and version comparison
All versions use a 658 cc Gasoline engine with 3 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder and distributed injection (multi-point). Because every engine has the same displacement, output comparisons are direct: the listed engines range from approximately 79.0 hp per litre for the 52 hp unit to approximately 97.3 hp per litre for the 64 hp unit.
| Generation and exact version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First generation 0.7 AT, naturally aspirated | 54 hp | 63 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | AWD |
| First generation 0.7 AT, naturally aspirated | 54 hp | 63 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| First generation 0.7 AT, turbo | 60 hp | 83 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | Turbo | 4-speed Automatic | AWD |
| First generation 0.7 AT, turbo | 60 hp | 83 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | Turbo | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| Second generation 0.7 AT, naturally aspirated | 54 hp | 63 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| Second generation 0.7 AT, naturally aspirated | 54 hp | 63 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | AWD |
| Second generation 0.7 AT, turbo | 60 hp | 83 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | Turbo | 4-speed Automatic | AWD |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, naturally aspirated | 52 hp | 63 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | No | Variable | FWD |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, naturally aspirated | 52 hp | 63 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | No | Variable | AWD |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, naturally aspirated | 54 hp | 63 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | No | Variable | FWD |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, naturally aspirated | 54 hp | 63 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | No | Variable | AWD |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, turbo | 64 hp | 95 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | Turbo | Variable | FWD |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, turbo | 64 hp | 95 Nm | 658 cc | Gasoline | 3, Inline | Turbo | Variable | AWD |
The first- and second-generation naturally aspirated 0.7 AT develops 54 hp at 6500 rpm and 63 Nm at 3500 rpm. The 60 hp turbo 0.7 AT reaches peak power at 6000 rpm and produces 83 Nm at 3000 rpm. Turbocharging therefore adds 6 hp and 20 Nm over the 54 hp engine, while peak torque arrives 500 rpm earlier.
The third-generation 52 hp 0.7 CVT makes peak power at 6000 rpm and 63 Nm at 4000 rpm. The 54 hp 0.7 CVT makes peak power at 6500 rpm, with the same 63 Nm at 4000 rpm. The 64 hp turbo 0.7 CVT produces 95 Nm at 3000 rpm and peak power at 6000 rpm. Compared with the 54 hp third-generation engine, it adds 10 hp and 32 Nm, an increase of approximately 18.5% in power and 50.8% in torque.
Performance, fuel average and mpg
Acceleration from 0–100 km/h is not measured for any Nissan Moco version in the supplied data. Top speed is also not measured for any version.
City fuel consumption is not measured, highway fuel consumption is not measured, and combined fuel consumption is not measured across all three generations. Consequently, a defensible Nissan Moco fuel average or mpg comparison cannot be made from these specifications. The data identifies 92 fuel for the first-generation versions and the third-generation versions. In the second generation, 95 is listed for the naturally aspirated AWD and turbo AWD versions, while the naturally aspirated FWD version’s fuel grade is not measured.
Nissan Moco dimensions, weight and tank capacity
Overall exterior dimensions and wheel sizes are not measured for any generation. Kerb weight, gross weight, ground clearance and fuel-tank capacity provide the available basis for comparing the versions.
| Generation and exact version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First generation 0.7 AT, 54 hp AWD | 890 kg | not measured | 160 mm | 30 litres | not measured |
| First generation 0.7 AT, 54 hp FWD | 850 kg | not measured | 150 mm | 30 litres | not measured |
| First generation 0.7 AT, 60 hp AWD | 900 kg | not measured | 160 mm | 30 litres | not measured |
| First generation 0.7 AT, 60 hp FWD | 860 kg | not measured | 150 mm | 30 litres | not measured |
| Second generation 0.7 AT, 54 hp FWD | 850 kg | 1070 kg | not measured | 30 litres | not measured |
| Second generation 0.7 AT, 54 hp AWD | 890 kg | not measured | 160 mm | 30 litres | not measured |
| Second generation 0.7 AT, 60 hp AWD | 900 kg | 1120 kg | 150 mm | 30 litres | not measured |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, 52 hp FWD | 800 kg | not measured | 155 mm | 27 litres | not measured |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, 52 hp AWD | 850 kg | not measured | 150 mm | 27 litres | not measured |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, 54 hp FWD | 790 kg | not measured | 155 mm | 27 litres | not measured |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, 54 hp AWD | 840 kg | not measured | 150 mm | 27 litres | not measured |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, 64 hp FWD | 830 kg | not measured | 155 mm | 27 litres | not measured |
| Third generation 0.7 CVT, 64 hp AWD | 880 kg | not measured | 150 mm | 27 litres | not measured |
Among the third-generation versions, choosing AWD adds 50 kg to each directly comparable powertrain and reduces ground clearance by 5 mm. In the first generation, AWD adds 40 kg but increases ground clearance by 10 mm. The second-generation naturally aspirated AWD version is 40 kg heavier than the FWD version, although FWD ground clearance is not measured.
The lightest car listed is the third-generation 54 hp FWD 0.7 CVT at 790 kg. Its weight-to-power ratio is approximately 14.6 kg per hp. The third-generation turbo FWD 0.7 CVT weighs 830 kg but improves that ratio to approximately 13.0 kg per hp. The turbo AWD version weighs 880 kg, equivalent to 13.8 kg per hp. For comparison, the first-generation 54 hp FWD 0.7 AT carries approximately 15.7 kg per hp, and the second-generation 60 hp AWD 0.7 AT carries 15.0 kg per hp.
Which Nissan Moco version should you buy?
For the strongest engine and best weight-to-power result, the third-generation turbo 0.7 CVT with 64 hp, 95 Nm and FWD is the leading specification. It weighs 830 kg and has 155 mm of ground clearance. Relative to the third-generation 54 hp FWD 0.7 CVT, the turbo version adds 10 hp and 32 Nm while adding 40 kg. That is the clearest performance-oriented choice in the data.
For the lowest kerb weight, choose the third-generation naturally aspirated 0.7 CVT with 54 hp and FWD. At 790 kg, it is 10 kg lighter than the 52 hp FWD alternative despite producing 2 hp more. Both make 63 Nm, use the same Variable transmission, hold 27 litres and provide 155 mm of ground clearance, so the 54 hp version has the numerical advantage.
Choose a third-generation AWD 0.7 CVT only when AWD itself is the priority. Against the matching FWD version, AWD adds 50 kg and reduces listed clearance from 155 mm to 150 mm at every output level. The engine output and 27-litre tank remain unchanged.
The first-generation turbo FWD 0.7 AT is the strongest choice among the first-generation versions by weight-to-power ratio. Its 60 hp and 860 kg yield approximately 14.3 kg per hp, compared with approximately 15.7 kg per hp for the 54 hp FWD version. Turbocharging adds 6 hp and 20 Nm for only 10 kg of additional kerb weight.
Within the second generation, the turbo AWD 0.7 AT raises output from 54 hp and 63 Nm to 60 hp and 83 Nm compared with the naturally aspirated AWD 0.7 AT. It adds only 10 kg, moving from 890 to 900 kg. Its 150 mm ground clearance is 10 mm lower than the naturally aspirated AWD version’s 160 mm, however.
Buyers deciding between generations should focus on the measurable changes. The third generation offers the highest output at 64 hp and 95 Nm, the lowest kerb weight at 790 kg, and a Variable transmission, but its 27-litre tank is 3 litres smaller than the 30-litre tank in the first two generations. The earlier generations use a 4-speed Automatic and peak at 60 hp and 83 Nm. Prices, parts costs, engine prices, engine oil capacity, reliability and vehicles for sale are not measured in the supplied data, so they cannot support a version recommendation here.