Renault Lodgy

Renault Lodgy: which version to buy — 1.5 MT vs 1.6 MT

The Renault Lodgy catalogue in these data is one generation (2012-01-01 to 2017-01-31), Compact Van body, and two named versions: 1.5 MT (Diesel, 85 hp) and 1.6 MT (Gasoline, 80 hp). There is no second generation and no restyling row to compare. The buying question is therefore not “which year of Lodgy,” but which of these two 1 generation powertrains matches how you drive.

The Renault Lodgy catalogue in these data is one generation (2012-01-01 to 2017-01-31), Compact Van body, and two named versions: 1.5 MT (Diesel, 85 hp) and 1.6 MT (Gasoline, 80 hp). There is no second generation and no restyling row to compare. The buying question is therefore not “which year of Lodgy,” but which of these two 1 generation powertrains matches how you drive.

Both versions are Front, transverse, 4 Inline cylinders, 2 valves per cylinder, 5 Manual, FWD, Euro 4, 50 L tank, 140 mm ground clearance, Independent, spring front, Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem rear, Ventilated disc front, Drum rear. Wheel sizes are not measured for either. The split is fuel, boost, torque, weight, consumption, and 0–100 — not layout or gearbox.

Generations: what actually changed (one generation only)

1 generation (2012-01-01–2017-01-31), Compact Van, 2 versions. Production start and stop are the same on the generation and on both 1.5 MT and 1.6 MT. No later generation in the data means no later-gen engine, no extra gears, no drive change, and no measured restyle. Extra money, if any, is not in these figures; the arithmetic below is only between the two versions that sit in the same years.

Engines and specs (exact version names)

1.5 MT is the smaller engine by displacement (1461 vs 1598 cc, 137 cc less) and the stronger one by peak output: 85 hp / 63 kW at 3750 rpm versus 80 hp / 59 kW at 5000 rpm on 1.6 MT. Peak torque is 200 Nm at 1750 rpm versus 128 Nm at 2800 rpm. Compression is 15.5 versus 9.5. Bore × stroke is 76 × 80.5 versus 79.5 × 80.5. Fuel system on 1.5 MT is not measured; 1.6 MT is Distributed injection (multi-point). Fuel labels: Diesel versus 95.

Power per litre from these numbers: 1.5 MT 85 / 1.461 ≈ 58.2 hp/L; 1.6 MT 80 / 1.598 ≈ 50.1 hp/L. The turbo Diesel makes about 8.1 hp more per litre than the naturally aspirated Gasoline. Torque per litre: 200 / 1.461 ≈ 137 Nm/L versus 128 / 1.598 ≈ 80 Nm/L.

Performance and economy: what the extra 5 hp actually does

0–100 km/h: 1.5 MT 13 s, 1.6 MT 14.9 s — 1.9 s faster for the Diesel. Top speed: 163 vs 158 km/h — 5 km/h. Peak power is only 5 hp apart (85 vs 80), so the gap in acceleration is not mainly the horsepower headline; it sits with 72 Nm extra torque (200 − 128) arriving 1050 rpm earlier (1750 vs 2800).

Fuel use (L/100 km):

• City: 1.5 MT 5.5 vs 1.6 MT 9.7 — 4.2 L/100 km less
• Highway: 4.3 vs 6.3 — 2.0 L/100 km less
• Mixed: 4.7 vs 7.6 — 2.9 L/100 km less

CO2: 124 g/km vs 179 g/km — 55 g/km less on 1.5 MT. Both Euro 4.

With the same 50 L tank, mixed-cycle range from these figures is 50 / 4.7 × 100 ≈ 1064 km on 1.5 MT versus 50 / 7.6 × 100 ≈ 658 km on 1.6 MT — about 406 km more between fills on mixed numbers. City range: 50 / 5.5 × 100 ≈ 909 km versus 50 / 9.7 × 100 ≈ 515 km. Highway: 50 / 4.3 × 100 ≈ 1163 km versus 50 / 6.3 × 100 ≈ 794 km.

Nothing in the data is labelled mpg. If you search “Lodgy mpg,” the measured figures here are the L/100 km rows above; a US mpg conversion is not in the source and is not measured.

Dimensions and weight: kerb, payload, clearance, tank, wheels

Ground clearance is 140 mm on both. Tank is 50 L on both. Wheel sizes are not measured on both.

Kerb weight: 1.5 MT 1222 kg, 1.6 MT 1195 kg — Diesel is 27 kg heavier. Gross: 1889 vs 1859 kg — 30 kg. Payload from those two pairs: 1889 − 1222 = 667 kg on 1.5 MT, 1859 − 1195 = 664 kg on 1.6 MT — 3 kg apart. For a Compact Van, that payload split is not a reason to pick one engine over the other.

Weight per horsepower: 1222 / 85 ≈ 14.4 kg/hp on 1.5 MT versus 1195 / 80 ≈ 14.9 kg/hp on 1.6 MT. The Gasoline is lighter at the kerb but slightly heavier per horsepower. Combined with the 72 Nm torque gap, that is consistent with the 1.9 s 0–100 gap.

Chassis labels are identical: Independent, spring front; Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem rear; Ventilated disc / Drum. No version in the data adds measured wheel size, extra gears, or another drive type.

Which version to choose

There are two named versions. Use the names as they stand: 1.5 MT and 1.6 MT. They do not share a name, so they are not distinguished by horsepower in the title; they are distinguished by fuel and by 85 hp versus 80 hp.

Choose 1.5 MT if the numbers you care about are torque, 0–100, mixed consumption, CO2, and range. It is Turbo Diesel, 1461 cc, 85 hp at 3750 rpm, 200 Nm at 1750 rpm, 13 s to 100, 163 km/h, mixed 4.7 L/100 km, city 5.5, highway 4.3, CO2 124 g/km, kerb 1222 kg. Versus 1.6 MT it is +5 hp, +72 Nm, −1.9 s 0–100, +5 km/h top speed, −2.9 L/100 km mixed, −55 g/km CO2, +27 kg kerb. Fuel system is not measured. For a Compact Van used with load, the 200 Nm at 1750 rpm is the largest single gap in the table.

Choose 1.6 MT if you want Gasoline, 95, no turbo, and the lower kerb weight. It is 1598 cc, 80 hp at 5000 rpm, 128 Nm at 2800 rpm, Distributed injection (multi-point), boost No, 14.9 s to 100, 158 km/h, mixed 7.6, city 9.7, highway 6.3, CO2 179 g/km, kerb 1195 kg. You give up 5 hp and 72 Nm and accept 2.9 L/100 km more mixed fuel for a 27 kg lighter kerb, 3 kg less payload, and a naturally aspirated 4 Inline that peaks 1250 rpm later than the Diesel. Compression 9.5 versus 15.5 is the other structural difference in the engine data.

Do not choose on generation, body, gearbox, or drive. Both are 1 generation, Compact Van, 5 Manual, FWD, Euro 4, 140 mm, 50 L. There is no Automatic, no AWD, and no second generation in the source. “What the extra money buys” cannot be priced here; prices are not in the data. What the extra specification buys, if you take 1.5 MT over 1.6 MT, is 5 hp, 72 Nm, 1.9 s, 5 km/h, 2.9 L/100 km mixed, 55 g/km CO2, and about 406 km mixed range from the same 50 L tank, at +27 kg kerb.

Reliability / problems: no failure rates, recalls, or service intervals are in the data. Those searches are not answered by inventing them. What is measured and can be compared is Euro 4 on both, Diesel versus Gasoline, Turbo versus No, and the consumption/CO2 pair above.

Short pick: same years, same Compact Van, same 5 Manual FWD. 1.5 MT is the stronger, more economical measured set (85 hp, 200 Nm, 4.7 mixed, 13 s). 1.6 MT is the Gasoline 95 set (80 hp, 128 Nm, 7.6 mixed, 14.9 s, 27 kg lighter). If you need one sentence with both names: buy 1.5 MT for torque and litres per 100 km; buy 1.6 MT only if the fuel type must be Gasoline.