Renault Caravelle: which version to buy
Buy 1.0 MT if the goal is more measured output: 40 hp / 30 kW from 956 cm³ versus 37 hp / 28 kW from 845 cm³ on 0.9 MT. That is +3 hp and +2 kW for +111 cm³ of displacement.
Buy 1.0 MT if the goal is more measured output: 40 hp / 30 kW from 956 cm³ versus 37 hp / 28 kW from 845 cm³ on 0.9 MT. That is +3 hp and +2 kW for +111 cm³ of displacement.
Buy 0.9 MT if the goal is the smaller engine and the higher power density on the numbers we have: 37 ÷ 0.845 ≈ 43.8 hp per litre against 40 ÷ 0.956 ≈ 41.8 hp per litre on 1.0 MT. The smaller unit makes about 2.0 hp more per litre.
There is no second generation, no restyling as a separate generation, and no third body. You are not choosing between eras of Caravelle. You are choosing between two Cabrio manuals from the same 1958–1968 window.
What the extra displacement does not buy on this dataset: extra gears, a different drive layout, boost, a different fuel type, or a different cylinder count. Gearbox is Manual 4 on both. Drive is RWD on both. Boost is No on both. Fuel is Gasoline on both. Cylinders are 4, layout Inline, valves per cylinder 2, engine position Front, longitudinal, feed Carburetor — identical labels on 0.9 MT and 1.0 MT.
Generations: what changed (and what did not)
1 generation ran 1958-01-01 to 1968-12-31, body Cabrio, 2 versions. Both versions share those dates. There is no later generation in the data to compare against, so “which generation” is not a live choice: the only generation is this one.
Inside that generation the only measured split is engine size and power:
| Version | Years | Body | hp | kW | Displacement (cm³) | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.9 MT | 1958–1968 | Cabrio | 37 | 28 | 845 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual 4 | RWD |
| 1.0 MT | 1958–1968 | Cabrio | 40 | 30 | 956 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual 4 | RWD |
Relative to 0.9 MT, 1.0 MT is 111 / 845 ≈ 13.1% larger in displacement and 3 / 37 ≈ 8.1% stronger in horsepower (2 / 28 ≈ 7.1% in kW). Power did not scale one-for-one with capacity: you pay 13.1% more cubic centimetres for 8.1% more hp.
That is the whole generation-to-generation story available here: one generation, two engines, same Cabrio shell, same Manual 4 RWD architecture.
Engine specs comparison
0.9 MT — 845 cm³ Gasoline Inline 4, 2 valves per cylinder, No boost, Front, longitudinal, Carburetor, 37 hp / 28 kW. Peak rpm for power is not measured. Torque in Nm is not measured. Torque rpm is not measured. Compression ratio is not measured. Bore and stroke are not measured.
1.0 MT — 956 cm³ Gasoline Inline 4, 2 valves per cylinder, No boost, Front, longitudinal, Carburetor, 40 hp / 30 kW. Peak rpm for power is not measured. Torque in Nm is not measured. Torque rpm is not measured. Compression ratio is not measured. Bore and stroke are not measured.
Arithmetic that is allowed from those figures:
- Displacement gap: 956 − 845 = 111 cm³.
- Output gap: 40 − 37 = 3 hp; 30 − 28 = 2 kW.
- Specific output: 0.9 MT ≈ 43.8 hp/L and ≈ 33.1 kW/L (28 ÷ 0.845); 1.0 MT ≈ 41.8 hp/L and ≈ 31.4 kW/L (30 ÷ 0.956).
- Horsepower per 100 cm³: 0.9 MT ≈ 4.38 hp / 100 cm³; 1.0 MT ≈ 4.18 hp / 100 cm³.
If you treat litres as the thing you are “buying,” 0.9 MT extracts more measured horsepower from each litre. If you treat peak horsepower as the thing you are buying, 1.0 MT is the higher number, by 3 hp.
There is no Automatic, no AWD, no turbo, and no other cylinder count in this catalogue row. A search for Caravelle engine options that are not 0.9 MT or 1.0 MT will not find another named version in these data.
Gearbox, drive, chassis: no version split
On 0.9 MT and 1.0 MT the transmission is Manual, 4 speeds. Drive is RWD. Front suspension is Independent, spring. Rear suspension is not measured. Front brakes are Disc (label Disc in the English field). Rear brakes are not measured.
That means a buyer cannot use gearbox type, drive type, or the measured front-end chassis labels to separate the two cars. The comparison collapses to engine displacement and the 37 hp versus 40 hp pair.
Front, longitudinal placement is the same on both, so the catalogue does not support a “front versus rear engine” decision either. Carburetor is the same feed on both.
Performance and mpg
0-100 is not measured on 0.9 MT. 0-100 is not measured on 1.0 MT. You cannot rank sprint times from this file.
Top speed is not measured on 0.9 MT. Top speed is not measured on 1.0 MT. You cannot rank vmax from this file.
Fuel consumption city is not measured on either version. Highway is not measured. Combined / mpg is not measured. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. Fuel grade is not measured.
So “which Caravelle is quicker” and “which Caravelle uses less fuel” are questions these numbers do not answer. The only performance-adjacent ranking that is actually measured is peak output: 1.0 MT at 40 hp / 30 kW above 0.9 MT at 37 hp / 28 kW. Whether that 3 hp changes 0-100 or mpg is not measured.
Weight-to-power cannot be computed: kerb weight is not measured on 0.9 MT and not measured on 1.0 MT. Gross weight is not measured on either. Without mass, hp/tonne is not a figure we can form.
Dimensions, weight, tank, wheels, clearance
Kerb weight: not measured (0.9 MT), not measured (1.0 MT). Gross weight: not measured, not measured. Ground clearance: not measured, not measured. Tank: not measured, not measured. Wheel sizes: not measured, not measured.
There is therefore no “smaller, lighter 0.9” or “heavier 1.0” claim available from the data. A buyer who wants the Caravelle with more ground clearance, a larger tank, or a specific wheel size will not find a version-level difference here because those fields are not measured on either car.
The only body type in the generation is Cabrio. You are not choosing coupe versus Cabrio inside this model key.
Problems, reliability, running cost — what is (not) in the numbers
There is no reliability score, no failure list, and no service-interval field in the launch data. Those topics are not measured.
What is measured and relevant to running the car: both versions are Gasoline Carburetor engines, No boost, Manual 4, RWD, Inline 4, 2 valves per cylinder. You are not choosing between a boosted engine and a naturally aspirated one, or between Manual and Automatic. Maintenance complexity that would follow from those splits is not differentiated in the catalogue because the splits are not there.
Power density slightly favours 0.9 MT (≈43.8 hp/L vs ≈41.8 hp/L). Absolute output favours 1.0 MT (40 hp vs 37 hp). Displacement favours 1.0 MT by 111 cm³. That is the entire measured “what you get for the larger engine” story.
Decision in one pass
- Want the higher listed power: 1.0 MT — 40 hp / 30 kW, 956 cm³ Gasoline Inline 4, Manual 4, RWD, Cabrio, 1958–1968.
- Want the smaller listed engine and higher hp per litre: 0.9 MT — 37 hp / 28 kW, 845 cm³ Gasoline Inline 4, Manual 4, RWD, Cabrio, 1958–1968.
- Want a later generation, another body, Automatic, AWD, or boost: not in this model’s data. One generation, Cabrio only, both versions Manual 4 RWD, boost No.
- Want the quicker 0-100, higher top speed, better mpg, lower weight, more clearance, or a bigger tank: those figures are not measured on 0.9 MT or 1.0 MT, so they cannot decide the purchase.
The extra capacity on 1.0 MT is 13.1%; the extra horsepower is 8.1%. If the only measured benefit of the larger engine is 3 hp and 2 kW, that is what the step from 0.9 MT to 1.0 MT buys on this catalogue. Everything else that is filled in — Gasoline, Inline 4, 2 valves per cylinder, No boost, Front, longitudinal, Carburetor, Manual 4, RWD, Independent, spring front suspension, Disc front brakes, Cabrio, 1958–1968 — is shared.