PGO Cevennes

PGO Cevennes: which version to buy

The PGO Cevennes is a Cabrio sold in 1 generation from 2005 with no end date in the data. The catalogue lists 4 versions: 1.6 MT, 1.6 AT, 2.0 AT, and 2.0 MT. All are Gasoline, 4 cylinders, Inline, RWD, 95 fuel, 120 mm ground clearance, independent spring suspension front and rear, Ceramic ventilated front brakes, and Disc rear brakes.

The PGO Cevennes is a Cabrio sold in 1 generation from 2005 with no end date in the data. The catalogue lists 4 versions: 1.6 MT, 1.6 AT, 2.0 AT, and 2.0 MT. All are Gasoline, 4 cylinders, Inline, RWD, 95 fuel, 120 mm ground clearance, independent spring suspension front and rear, Ceramic ventilated front brakes, and Disc rear brakes. The buying question is not “what is this car” but which of those four combinations of engine, gearbox, and measured mass actually changes the drive.

There is only one generation, so there is no later restyle to wait for and no earlier generation to avoid. The choice is entirely among the four versions of generation 1.

Which generation to buy

1 generation (from 2005, still listed without a stop date) is the only generation. It is a Cabrio with 4 versions. Nothing in the data records a restyling as a separate generation. If you are comparing “old” versus “new” Cevennes, the data do not give a second generation to prefer; the spread is engine size and gearbox, not year of body.

Specs: the four versions side by side

The 1.6 pair shares one engine; the 2.0 pair shares another. Gearbox is the only difference inside each pair.

Engine: 1.6 Turbo versus 2.0 with no boost

The 1.6 versions make 184 hp from 1600 cm³. That is 115 hp per litre (184 ÷ 1.6). The 2.0 versions make 140 hp from 1997 cm³: about 70.1 hp per litre (140 ÷ 1.997). The smaller engine is 44 hp stronger (184 − 140) despite 397 cm³ less displacement (1997 − 1600).

Torque follows the same pattern. 1.6 MT and 1.6 AT deliver 240 Nm from 1500 – 5000 rpm: 150 Nm per litre (240 ÷ 1.6). 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT deliver 195 Nm at 3000 rpm: about 97.6 Nm per litre (195 ÷ 1.997). The turbo 1.6 has 45 Nm more (240 − 195) and holds peak torque across a 3500 rpm window (5000 − 1500), while the 2.0 quotes a single peak at 3000.

Peak power rpm is 6450 on the 1.6 versus 6000 on the 2.0 — 450 rpm higher. Compression is 10.5 on the 1.6 versus 7.75 on the 2.0 (difference 2.75). Bore × stroke is 77 × 85.8 on the 1.6 and 85 × 88 on the 2.0. Fuel injection is Direct injection (direct) on the 1.6 and Distributed injection (multi-point) on the 2.0. Boost is Turbo versus No. Valves per cylinder are 4 on every version. Fuel grade is 95 on every version.

If the extra money is meant to buy more engine, the numbers do not support buying 2.0 AT or 2.0 MT for power. They support the 1.6 pair: more hp, more Nm, broader torque band, higher specific output.

Gearbox: what Automatic versus Manual actually changes

Inside the 1.6 pair, 1.6 MT is Manual with 6 gears; 1.6 AT is Automatic with 7 gears. Power, torque, 0–100, and top speed are identical: 184 hp, 240 Nm, 6.5 s, 225 km/h. The 7-speed Automatic does not add a measured tenth of a second or a measured km/h in this catalogue. Choosing 1.6 AT buys one extra ratio and Automatic operation, not a faster car on paper.

Inside the 2.0 pair, 2.0 MT is Manual with 5 gears; 2.0 AT is Automatic with 4 gears. Again the performance figures match: 140 hp, 195 Nm, 7 s to 100, 200 km/h. Here the Automatic has 1 fewer gear than the Manual (4 versus 5), the opposite of the 1.6 pair, where the Automatic has 1 more gear than the Manual (7 versus 6).

Across engines, the gearbox spread is 4, 5, 6, and 7 speeds. 2.0 AT has the fewest ratios; 1.6 AT has the most. If you want the densest set of gears with Automatic, the data point to 1.6 AT. If you want Manual with the most gears, the data point to 1.6 MT (6 versus 5 on 2.0 MT).

Performance and economy: 0–100, top speed, mpg

1.6 MT and 1.6 AT: 6.5 s to 100 km/h, 225 km/h top speed. 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT: 7 s to 100 km/h, 200 km/h top speed.

The 1.6 pair is 0.5 s quicker to 100 (7 − 6.5) and 25 km/h faster at the top (225 − 200). Those gaps sit on the same RWD layout and the same 120 mm clearance, so they come from the engine difference, not from a different body or generation.

City, highway, and combined fuel consumption are not measured on 1.6 MT, 1.6 AT, 2.0 AT, and 2.0 MT. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. Tank volume is not measured. There is no mpg figure in the data to trade against the extra 44 hp. You cannot pick a “more economical” Cevennes from this catalogue; you can only pick a quicker one or a slower one.

Dimensions, weight, and kg per horsepower

Ground clearance is 120 mm on all four versions. Wheel sizes are not measured on all four. Tank volume is not measured on all four.

Kerb weight is 980 kg on 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT. On 1.6 MT and 1.6 AT kerb weight is not measured. Gross weight is not measured on every version.

For the two versions that have a kerb figure, mass per horsepower is 980 ÷ 140 = 7.0 kg/hp. Specific power is 140 ÷ 980 ≈ 0.143 hp per kg. You cannot compute the same ratio for 1.6 MT or 1.6 AT without inventing a mass. Do not treat the 1.6 as “lighter” or “heavier” than 980 kg: that number is not measured for those two versions.

What you can say: the 2.0 pair is a 980 kg Cabrio with 140 hp. The 1.6 pair is a Cabrio with 184 hp and unknown kerb in this dataset.

Which version to choose

Buy 1.6 MT if you want the strongest measured combination and Manual control: 184 hp, 240 Nm from 1500 – 5000, 6 gears, 6.5 s, 225 km/h. Versus 2.0 MT you gain 44 hp, 45 Nm, 1 extra gear, 0.5 s, and 25 km/h. Versus 1.6 AT you give up Automatic and 1 gear (6 versus 7) and change nothing in hp, Nm, 0–100, or top speed.

Buy 1.6 AT if you want the same 184 hp / 240 Nm engine with Automatic and the catalogue’s largest gear count (7). Versus 2.0 AT you gain 44 hp, 45 Nm, 3 extra gears (7 versus 4), 0.5 s, and 25 km/h. Versus 1.6 MT you add Automatic and one ratio; the stopwatch figures stay 6.5 s and 225 km/h.

Buy 2.0 MT only if you specifically want the 1997 cm³ engine with No boost, Distributed injection (multi-point), compression 7.75, and Manual with 5 gears. You accept 140 hp, 195 Nm at 3000, 7 s, and 200 km/h. You do get a measured kerb of 980 kg, which the 1.6 pair does not publish here.

Buy 2.0 AT only if you want that same 140 hp engine with Automatic. You get the fewest gears in the range (4), the same 7 s / 200 km/h as 2.0 MT, and the same 980 kg kerb. Versus 1.6 AT you lose 44 hp, 45 Nm, 3 gears, 0.5 s, and 25 km/h.

There is no price in the data, so “what the extra money buys” can only be read as what the extra specification buys. Moving from either 2.0 version to the matching 1.6 gearbox type buys 44 hp, 45 Nm, Turbo instead of No, Direct injection (direct) instead of Distributed injection (multi-point), compression 10.5 instead of 7.75, a torque plateau instead of a single 3000 rpm peak, 0.5 s to 100, and 25 km/h of top speed. Moving from Manual to Automatic inside a pair buys gearbox type and gear count only: 6 versus 7 on the 1.6, 5 versus 4 on the 2.0, with 0 change in hp, Nm, 0–100, or top speed.

Fuel use, tank, wheels, eco class, CO2, and gross weight cannot break the tie: they are not measured. Kerb weight can break a tie only if you need a published 980 kg figure, which exists solely on 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT.

Short ranking from the numbers: 1.6 MT or 1.6 AT first (same engine, choose Manual 6 or Automatic 7); 2.0 MT or 2.0 AT only if you want the 1997 / 140 hp / No boost specification and a listed 980 kg kerb. With 1 generation and one Cabrio body, that ranking is the whole buying decision the data support.