Nissan Tino

Nissan Tino: which version to buy — 1.8 AT vs 2.0 CVT

The Nissan Tino was sold in one generation, from 1 January 2003 to 28 February 2006, as a Compact Van with two versions: 1.8 AT and 2.0 CVT. There is no second generation and no restyle in the data, so the buying choice is not “which year of body” but which of these two powertrains.

The Nissan Tino was sold in one generation, from 1 January 2003 to 28 February 2006, as a Compact Van with two versions: 1.8 AT and 2.0 CVT. There is no second generation and no restyle in the data, so the buying choice is not “which year of body” but which of these two powertrains. Both are Gasoline, 4 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, no boost, Front, transverse, Distributed injection (multi-point), FWD, 92 fuel, 60 L tank, 150 mm ground clearance, Independent, spring suspension front and rear, Ventilated disc front brakes and Disc rear brakes. Acceleration to 100 km/h, top speed, fuel consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight and wheel sizes are not measured on either version.

Specs that actually differ

Peak power arrives at 5600 rpm on both. Peak torque is 160 Nm at 4400 rpm on 1.8 AT and 178 Nm at 4800 rpm on 2.0 CVT. Compression is 9.5 on both. Bore × stroke is 80 × 88 on 1.8 AT and 86 × 86 square on 2.0 CVT.

Power, torque and what the extra 229 cc buys

2.0 CVT has 15 hp more than 1.8 AT (135 vs 120) and 11 kW more (99 vs 88). That is 12.5% more horsepower and 12.5% more kilowatts for 229 cc extra displacement (1998 − 1769). Torque rises by 18 Nm (178 vs 160), or 11.3%.

Specific output is almost identical: 120 hp ÷ 1.769 L ≈ 67.8 hp/L on 1.8 AT, 135 hp ÷ 1.998 L ≈ 67.6 hp/L on 2.0 CVT. Torque per litre is 160 ÷ 1.769 ≈ 90.4 Nm/L versus 178 ÷ 1.998 ≈ 89.1 Nm/L. The larger engine is not a higher-strung unit; it makes more power mainly because it is bigger, at the same 9.5 compression, the same multi-point injection, the same 5600 rpm power peak, and still no boost.

The torque peak sits 400 rpm later on 2.0 CVT (4800 vs 4400). 1.8 AT therefore puts its 160 Nm on the table earlier; 2.0 CVT asks for more revs before its 178 Nm arrives. Neither 0–100 nor top speed is measured, so this rpm split is the only performance timing the data give.

Weight per horsepower and the 50 kg penalty

1.8 AT kerb weight is 1400 kg; 2.0 CVT is 1450 kg — 50 kg, or 3.6%, heavier. Gross weight is not measured on either.

Weight per horsepower: 1400 ÷ 120 = 11.67 kg/hp on 1.8 AT, 1450 ÷ 135 = 10.74 kg/hp on 2.0 CVT. Power per tonne of kerb weight: 120 ÷ 1.400 ≈ 85.7 hp/t versus 135 ÷ 1.450 ≈ 93.1 hp/t. The heavier version still has the better power-to-weight: the extra 15 hp more than covers the extra 50 kg (about 3.3 kg of extra mass per extra horsepower).

Ground clearance is 150 mm on both. The tank is 60 L on both. Wheel sizes are not measured. Nothing in the chassis numbers argues for one version over the other; the Compact Van package is the same.

Gearbox: 4-speed Automatic vs Variable

1.8 AT is Automatic with 4 gears. 2.0 CVT is Variable; gear count is not measured because a CVT is not a stepped box.

That pairing is the real split. If you want a conventional 4-speed Automatic and the lighter 1400 kg kerb, 1.8 AT is the only option in this generation. If you want the 135 hp / 178 Nm engine, the data pair it only with Variable — there is no 2.0 Automatic and no 1.8 Variable in the table.

Performance and economy: what is not measured

0–100 km/h: not measured on 1.8 AT, not measured on 2.0 CVT. Top speed: not measured on both. City / highway / mixed consumption: not measured on both. CO2 and eco class: not measured on both.

You cannot pick a version on mpg or sprint figures from this catalogue. The only economy-related number that exists is the shared 60 L tank and shared 92 fuel. Both engines are Gasoline, both use Distributed injection (multi-point), both have 9.5 compression and no boost, so there is no diesel, no turbo and no octane step between them.

Dimensions and weight — same van, two kerb figures

Body type is Compact Van for the whole 2003–2006 run. Ground clearance 150 mm both. Tank 60 L both. Wheels not measured. Gross weight not measured. The only measured mass difference is kerb: 1400 kg (1.8 AT) vs 1450 kg (2.0 CVT). Suspension and brakes do not change: Independent, spring at both ends; Ventilated disc front; Disc rear.

Which generation changed what

There is one generation (key 4186), 1 January 2003 – 28 February 2006, two versions, Compact Van. No later generation, no restyle window, no change in drive (FWD only), no change in fuel, tank, clearance or brake type. “Which generation” is not a buying question here; both versions share the same dates.

Which version to choose

Choose 1.8 AT if you want the lightest Tino in the data (1400 kg), a 4-speed Automatic, and torque that peaks earlier (160 Nm at 4400 rpm). You give up 15 hp, 11 kW and 18 Nm, and you live with 11.67 kg/hp instead of 10.74 kg/hp. Displacement is 1769 cc, 80 × 88, 120 hp / 88 kW at 5600 rpm.

Choose 2.0 CVT if you want the strongest numbers in this one-generation range: 135 hp / 99 kW, 178 Nm, 1998 cc, 86 × 86, 93.1 hp per tonne of kerb weight. You pay 50 kg extra kerb (1450 kg), a later torque peak (4800 rpm), and you must take Variable rather than a 4-speed Automatic. Specific output is not the reason to buy it — 67.6 hp/L versus 67.8 hp/L on 1.8 AT.

There is no third version, no AWD, no boosted engine, and no measured 0–100 or mpg to break a tie. If the gearbox type matters more than 15 hp, 1.8 AT is the Automatic answer. If power-to-weight is the ranking, 2.0 CVT wins on 10.74 kg/hp versus 11.67 kg/hp despite the extra 50 kg.