Renault 14

Renault 14: which version to buy

Among the three Renault 14 versions in this catalogue, the 1.4 MT (72 hp) is the strongest on paper: 72 hp (53 kW) from 1397 cm³, 12 hp (9 kW) above the other 1.4 MT and 14 hp (10 kW) above the 1.2 MT. That is +20% versus the 60 hp 1.4 MT and +24% versus the 1.2 MT. There is only 1 generation (1976–1983), so the choice is between engines, not between eras.

Among the three Renault 14 versions in this catalogue, the 1.4 MT (72 hp) is the strongest on paper: 72 hp (53 kW) from 1397 cm³, 12 hp (9 kW) above the other 1.4 MT and 14 hp (10 kW) above the 1.2 MT. That is +20% versus the 60 hp 1.4 MT and +24% versus the 1.2 MT. There is only 1 generation (1976–1983), so the choice is between engines, not between eras.

The three names in the data are 1.2 MT, 1.4 MT, and 1.4 MT. The two 1.4 MT rows are not the same car: one is 60 hp (44 kW), the other is 72 hp (53 kW). Use power in the heading whenever you mean a specific 1.4 MT.

Specs table: every version named as in the database

Shared across all three: Hatchback 5-door, Gasoline, 4 cylinders Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Manual with 4 gears, FWD, ground clearance 150 mm, front brakes Disc, rear brakes Drum, front suspension Independent, spring, rear suspension Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem. Production window for every row: 1976-01-01 to 1983-12-31.

Generations: what actually changed (one generation, three engines)

There is 1 generation, not a restyle listed as a later generation. Body type does not change: Hatchback 5-door for all three versions. Version count in that generation: 3.

What changes is the powertrain, not the calendar:

• 1.2 MT: 1149 cm³, 58 hp (43 kW) at 5250 rpm, 93 Nm at 2500 rpm, engine Front, transverse, fuel system Distributed injection (multi-point), compression 9.6, bore × stroke 69 × 76.8, fuel 95.
• 1.4 MT (60 hp): 1397 cm³, 60 hp (44 kW) at 3200 rpm, torque not measured, engine Front, longitudinal, fuel system Carburetor, fuel 92.
• 1.4 MT (72 hp): 1397 cm³, 72 hp (53 kW), power rpm not measured, torque not measured, engine location not measured, fuel system Carburetor, fuel 92.

So the “generation gap” in this model is arithmetic on engines: +248 cm³ from 1.2 MT to either 1.4 MT, and +12 hp from the 60 hp 1.4 MT to the 72 hp 1.4 MT. Chassis figures that are measured (150 mm clearance, Disc / Drum, Independent, spring / Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem) do not differ between versions.

Engine comparison: power per litre, rpm, and what the extra displacement buys

Displacement. 1.2 MT is 1149 cm³. Each 1.4 MT is 1397 cm³. That is 248 cm³ more, or +22% displacement (1397 ÷ 1149). You do not get +22% power on the 60 hp 1.4 MT: 60 hp versus 58 hp is only +2 hp (+3%). The extra 248 cm³ is almost unused as peak horsepower until you take the 72 hp 1.4 MT.

Power per litre (hp ÷ litres, litres = cm³ ÷ 1000):

• 1.2 MT: 58 ÷ 1.149 ≈ 50.5 hp/l
• 1.4 MT (60 hp): 60 ÷ 1.397 ≈ 43.0 hp/l
• 1.4 MT (72 hp): 72 ÷ 1.397 ≈ 51.5 hp/l

The 60 hp 1.4 MT is the least specific: about 7.5 hp/l below the 1.2 MT. The 72 hp 1.4 MT is the densest of the three, about 1.0 hp/l above the 1.2 MT and 8.5 hp/l above the 60 hp 1.4 MT.

Kilowatts. 1.2 MT 43 kW, 60 hp 1.4 MT 44 kW (+1 kW), 72 hp 1.4 MT 53 kW (+10 kW vs 1.2 MT, +9 kW vs 60 hp 1.4 MT). The only large step is the 72 hp row.

Where peak power is quoted. 1.2 MT peaks at 5250 rpm. The 60 hp 1.4 MT peaks at 3200 rpm — 2050 rpm lower. That is the clearest driving-character difference in the measured rpm data: the 60 hp 1.4 MT is specified at a much lower engine speed. The 72 hp 1.4 MT has power rpm not measured, so you cannot rank its peak-rpm height against the other two.

Torque. Only 1.2 MT has a figure: 93 Nm at 2500 rpm. Both 1.4 MT versions: torque not measured. You cannot compute Nm per litre for the 1.4s, and you cannot say the larger engines make more twist — that number is absent.

Layout and feed — these are not the same 1.4 as a “bigger 1.2”.

• 1.2 MT: Front, transverse, Distributed injection (multi-point), compression 9.6, 69 × 76.8, fuel 95.
• 1.4 MT (60 hp): Front, longitudinal, Carburetor, compression not measured, bore × stroke not measured, fuel 92.
• 1.4 MT (72 hp): engine position not measured, Carburetor, compression not measured, bore × stroke not measured, fuel 92.

The 1.2 MT is the only version with injection, the only one with a compression ratio, the only one with bore × stroke, and the only one specified Front, transverse. The 60 hp 1.4 MT is specified Front, longitudinal. That is a different engine orientation in the data, not a mild tune of the 1.2 MT. The 72 hp 1.4 MT does not record orientation, so it cannot be grouped with either placement as a measured fact.

Fuel grade. 1.2 MT is 95. Both 1.4 MT versions are 92. If the decision is “which pump number is written in the spec,” 1.2 MT is 95; the two 1.4 MT cars are 92. No consumption figures exist to convert that into cost per kilometre.

Boost. All three: No. There is no turbo or supercharger row to buy.

Performance, mpg, and weight per horsepower: what is not measured

0–100. 1.2 MT: not measured. 1.4 MT (60 hp): not measured. 1.4 MT (72 hp): not measured. You cannot rank sprint times. +14 hp on the 72 hp 1.4 MT is a power ranking only.

Top speed. All three: not measured.

Fuel consumption (mpg / l/100 km). City, highway, and combined: not measured on every version. CO2: not measured. Eco class: not measured. Tank: not measured. There is no mpg table to choose by.

Weight and power-to-weight. Kerb weight: not measured. Gross weight: not measured. Therefore kg per hp is not measured for 1.2 MT, 1.4 MT (60 hp), or 1.4 MT (72 hp). A heavier-looking 1.4 cannot be proven from this dataset.

Wheels. Wheel sizes: not measured on all three.

Ground clearance. 150 mm on 1.2 MT, 150 mm on 1.4 MT (60 hp), 150 mm on 1.4 MT (72 hp). No version is the “taller” Renault 14 in these numbers.

Gearbox, drive, brakes: no version buys a different chassis spec

Gearbox. All three: Manual, 4 gears. There is no automatic and no 5-speed in the data. Choosing 1.4 MT does not buy extra ratios.

Drive. All three: FWD. There is no AWD or RWD Renault 14 here.

Brakes. Front Disc, rear Drum on every version. The 72 hp 1.4 MT does not list a different brake type.

Suspension. Front Independent, spring, rear Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem on every version.

If the question is “which generation changed the chassis,” the answer from this file is: none of these three rows change it. The generation is one; the body is Hatchback 5-door; clearance, brakes, and suspension strings match.

Which version to choose (using only these numbers)

Choose 1.2 MT if you want the only version with Distributed injection (multi-point), the only Front, transverse layout that is actually filled in, the only torque figure (93 Nm at 2500 rpm), the only compression (9.6) and bore × stroke (69 × 76.8), and the highest peak-power rpm on record (5250). Power is the lowest: 58 hp / 43 kW. Specific output is still high: ≈50.5 hp/l, close to the 72 hp 1.4 MT. Fuel specified: 95. You give up 14 hp versus the strongest 1.4 MT and 248 cm³. You do not give up a measured 0–100, top speed, or mpg, because those are not measured on the bigger engines either.

Do not choose 1.4 MT (60 hp) for “more power from more litres.” 60 hp versus 58 hp is +2 hp (+3%) from +22% capacity. Specific output is the worst of the set: ≈43.0 hp/l. What this row does buy in the data: 1397 cm³, Carburetor, Front, longitudinal, peak power quoted at 3200 rpm (2050 rpm below the 1.2 MT), fuel 92, 60 hp / 44 kW. Torque, 0–100, top speed, consumption, weights, tank, wheels: not measured. Versus the 72 hp 1.4 MT, you give up 12 hp (20%) and 9 kW for the same displacement, same Carburetor, same Manual 4, same FWD, same 150 mm.

Choose 1.4 MT (72 hp) if the ranking that matters is peak power: 72 hp / 53 kW, ≈51.5 hp/l, best of the three. Versus 1.2 MT: +14 hp, +10 kW, +248 cm³, fuel 92 instead of 95, feed Carburetor instead of Distributed injection (multi-point). Versus 60 hp 1.4 MT: same 1397 cm³, same Carburetor, same 92, +12 hp / +9 kW. Gaps on this row: power rpm not measured, torque not measured, engine location not measured, compression not measured, bore × stroke not measured, 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured, consumption not measured, kerb/gross not measured, tank not measured, wheels not measured. You are buying the horsepower number, not a measured performance or economy advantage.

“What the extra money buys.” Prices are not in this dataset, so there is no price delta. The spec delta that is priced in hardware terms:

• 1.2 MT → 1.4 MT (60 hp): +248 cm³, +2 hp, +1 kW, orientation Front, transverse → Front, longitudinal, injection → Carburetor, fuel 95 → 92, peak rpm 5250 → 3200, lose the only 93 Nm figure.
• 1.4 MT (60 hp) → 1.4 MT (72 hp): +12 hp, +9 kW, same 1397 cm³, same Carburetor, same Manual 4, same FWD. Orientation of the 72 hp engine is not measured, so you cannot treat it as the same longitudinal layout as a proven fact.
• 1.2 MT → 1.4 MT (72 hp): +14 hp, +10 kW, +248 cm³, ≈+1.0 hp/l, injection → Carburetor, 95 → 92.

Reliability / problems. This file has no failure rates, no common faults, no service intervals. Do not infer durability from carburetor versus injection: that would be outside the numbers.

Short ranking by what is actually measured.

1. Most power: 1.4 MT (72 hp) — 72 hp, 53 kW. 2. Most documented engine sheet: 1.2 MT — torque, rpm pair, compression, bore × stroke, injection, transverse layout. 3. Least power per litre, smallest power step up from the 1.2: 1.4 MT (60 hp) — 60 hp, ≈43.0 hp/l, +2 hp only.

All three share Hatchback 5-door, 1 generation 1976–1983, Manual 4, FWD, 150 mm, Disc / Drum. The buy decision is the engine row, not a second generation.