Peugeot 403

Peugeot 403: which version to buy — 1.3 MT vs 1.5 MT

If you are choosing a Peugeot 403, the catalogue gives you one generation (1955–1966), one body (Cabrio), and two named versions: 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT. There is no later generation to “step up” into, no restyle as a separate choice, and no automatic or all-wheel-drive alternative.

If you are choosing a Peugeot 403, the catalogue gives you one generation (1955–1966), one body (Cabrio), and two named versions: 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT. There is no later generation to “step up” into, no restyle as a separate choice, and no automatic or all-wheel-drive alternative. The buying question is therefore arithmetic: 1.5 MT adds 178 cm³, 18 hp and 13 kW over 1.3 MT, and it is the only version with a measured torque figure (102 Nm). Everything else that usually decides a purchase — 0–100, top speed, mpg, kerb weight, tank, wheels — is not measured in this dataset for either car.

Which Peugeot 403 version to buy

1.5 MT is the stronger of the two on every measured engine number. 1.3 MT is the smaller-displacement Cabrio with the same gearbox, drive and layout. There is no third engine, no extra generation, and no body other than Cabrio in these data.

On paper, 1.5 MT is the version to buy if the decision is power and the one complete torque row. 1.3 MT is the version to buy only if you specifically want the 1290 cm³ engine; it does not win any measured performance or economy contest because those contests have no numbers.

Specs compared: 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT engines

Both versions are Gasoline, 4 cylinders, Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Front, longitudinal, Carburetor. Both use Manual with 4 gears and RWD. Front suspension is Independent, spring; front brakes are Drum. Rear suspension, rear brakes, compression ratio, bore and stroke, and fuel grade are not measured for either.

1.3 MT is 1290 cm³, 47 hp, 35 kW. Torque is not measured. Power rpm is not measured. That is 47 ÷ 1.290 = 36.4 hp per litre (35 ÷ 1.290 = 27.1 kW per litre). You get 0.0364 hp per cubic centimetre.

1.5 MT is 1468 cm³, 65 hp at 5000 rpm, 48 kW, 102 Nm at 2500 rpm. That is 65 ÷ 1.468 = 44.3 hp per litre (48 ÷ 1.468 = 32.7 kW per litre). You get 0.0443 hp per cubic centimetre.

The extra 178 cm³ is 13.8% more capacity. The extra 18 hp is 38.3% more power. The extra 13 kW is 37.1% more electrical-equivalent output. Specific output rises 7.8 hp/L, so 1.5 MT is not only larger; it also extracts more power from each litre (44.3 vs 36.4). The ratio of power gain to displacement gain is 18 hp / 0.178 L ≈ 101 hp per extra litre of the step from 1.3 to 1.5 — far above either engine’s own specific output, which is why the jump looks large for a 178 cm³ increase.

Torque exists as a measured figure only on 1.5 MT: 102 Nm at 2500 rpm. For 1.3 MT, torque is not measured, so you cannot compute Nm per litre or a torque gap. You also cannot compute weight per horsepower: kerb weight is not measured for 1.3 MT or 1.5 MT.

Generations: there is only one, so generation does not change the choice

Peugeot 403 has 1 generation in these data: key 4452, 1 generation, 1955-01-01 to 1966-12-31, body Cabrio, 2 versions. Both 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT start 1955-01-01 and stop 1966-12-31. There is no second generation, no restyling listed as a separate generation, and no year-split that would make one engine “early” and the other “late” in the catalogue.

What generation changed: nothing in this dataset, because there is only one generation. The buying choice is not “which generation” but “which of two Cabrio manuals in the same years.” If you were hoping a later generation added more gears, a different drive, or a measured economy figure, these data do not show that change.

Performance and economy (mpg): not measured on either version

0–100 is not measured for 1.3 MT. 0–100 is not measured for 1.5 MT. You cannot say which is quicker to 100.

Top speed is not measured for 1.3 MT. Top speed is not measured for 1.5 MT. You cannot rank them on maximum speed.

City consumption is not measured for 1.3 MT. City consumption is not measured for 1.5 MT. Highway consumption is not measured for either. Combined consumption is not measured for either. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured.

So mpg and “which is cheaper to run” cannot be answered with a number from this catalogue. The only performance-related numbers that exist are engine output: 1.5 MT 65 hp / 48 kW / 102 Nm versus 1.3 MT 47 hp / 35 kW / torque not measured. If you treat more power as the proxy for “stronger on the road,” 1.5 MT is the pick; if you need a 0–100 or mpg table, both versions are equal in having no measurement.

Dimensions, weight, tank, wheels

Kerb weight is not measured for 1.3 MT. Kerb weight is not measured for 1.5 MT. Gross weight is not measured for either. Ground clearance is not measured. Tank volume is not measured. Wheel sizes are not measured.

Weight per horsepower cannot be calculated. You cannot say which Cabrio is lighter, which has more ground clearance, or which has a larger tank. Front suspension Independent, spring and front brakes Drum are the same labels on both; rear suspension and rear brakes are not measured on both. Dimensions therefore do not break the tie. The tie-breaker remains the engine table.

Reliability and problems: what the spec sheet does and does not tell you

This dataset does not list failure rates, service intervals, or known faults. What it does list, identically on 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT: Gasoline, Carburetor, 4 Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Front, longitudinal, Manual 4, RWD, Independent, spring front, Drum front.

The mechanical layout you are buying is therefore the same architecture twice. The difference that can affect load on that architecture is output: 1.5 MT makes 18 hp and 13 kW more, and has 102 Nm at 2500 rpm documented; 1.3 MT makes 47 hp / 35 kW with torque not measured. You cannot infer from these rows which engine is more reliable. You can only infer that you are not choosing between different cylinder counts, different boost, different gearboxes, or different drive types.

What the extra displacement buys (and what it does not)

From 1.3 MT to 1.5 MT you buy:

• +178 cm³ (1290 → 1468)
• +18 hp (47 → 65), +13 kW (35 → 48)
• a power peak rpm of 5000 (present on 1.5 MT, not measured on 1.3 MT)
• 102 Nm at 2500 rpm (present on 1.5 MT, not measured on 1.3 MT)
• +7.8 hp/L specific output (36.4 → 44.3)

You do not buy, in these data: a different gearbox (both Manual, 4), a different drive (both RWD), a different body (both Cabrio), a different generation span (both 1955-01-01–1966-12-31), a measured 0–100, a measured top speed, a measured mpg figure, a measured kerb or gross weight, a measured tank, or measured wheels.

There is no price in the data, so “what the extra money buys” cannot be a currency answer. In specification terms, the extra you get is the 1.5-litre row: more capacity, more power, higher specific output, and the only torque number in the model.

Verdict by use

Choose 1.5 MT if you want the Peugeot 403 Cabrio with the higher measured output: 65 hp, 48 kW, 1468 cm³, 44.3 hp/L, and 102 Nm at 2500 rpm, still Manual 4 and RWD, still 1955–1966.

Choose 1.3 MT if you want the 1290 cm³ Cabrio specifically: 47 hp, 35 kW, 36.4 hp/L, same Manual 4 and RWD, same years. You accept that torque, 0–100, top speed, mpg, and weight are not measured, and that you give up 18 hp and 13 kW versus 1.5 MT.

Do not choose by generation. There is one generation, two versions, one body. Generation comparison is empty; version comparison is the whole decision.

Do not choose by mpg, 0–100, or dimensions. Those figures are not measured on 1.3 MT and not measured on 1.5 MT. A ranking on those axes would be invented.

Exact names to keep when you search or link: 1.3 MT and 1.5 MT. They are not the same car with a rounded label; 47 hp versus 65 hp is the split, and both names must stay as in the database.