Renault Wind

Renault Wind: which version to buy

The Renault Wind was sold in one generation (March 2010–June 2013) as a Roadster with two petrol manuals: 1.2 MT and 1.6 MT. Both are Gasoline, 4 Inline cylinders, Front, transverse, 5-speed Manual, FWD, 95-octane fuel, and a 40 L tank. The buying choice is not generation or gearbox — it is turbo 1.2 MT versus naturally aspirated 1.6 MT.

The Renault Wind was sold in one generation (March 2010–June 2013) as a Roadster with two petrol manuals: 1.2 MT and 1.6 MT. Both are Gasoline, 4 Inline cylinders, Front, transverse, 5-speed Manual, FWD, 95-octane fuel, and a 40 L tank. The buying choice is not generation or gearbox — it is turbo 1.2 MT versus naturally aspirated 1.6 MT.

If you want the lighter, cheaper-to-run car with earlier torque, take 1.2 MT. If you want the faster 0–100 and the higher top speed, take 1.6 MT. The rest of this page is that split, with the numbers attached to each version name.

Generations: one body, two engines, nothing restyled as a new generation

1 generation (2010-03-01 to 2013-06-30) is the whole catalogue: Roadster, 2 versions, same dates on both engines. There is no second generation and no restyle listed as a separate generation, so you are not choosing a facelift year — you are choosing 1.2 MT or 1.6 MT inside the same window.

Chassis language is identical on both: front Independent, spring; rear Semi-independent, torsion; front Ventilated disc; rear Disc. Ground clearance is not measured. Wheel sizes are not measured. Gross weight is not measured. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. Those blanks apply to both versions equally, so they do not pick a winner.

Specs: what actually differs between 1.2 MT and 1.6 MT

1.6 MT has 33 hp more than 1.2 MT (133 vs 100) and 8 Nm more (160 vs 152). Displacement is 449 cc larger (1598 vs 1149). Boost is the other axis: 1.2 MT is Turbo; 1.6 MT is No.

Specific output (hp per litre, from the given hp and cc): 1.2 MT makes 87.0 hp/L (100 / 1.149); 1.6 MT makes 83.2 hp/L (133 / 1.598). The smaller turbo engine is the denser one. Peak power on 1.2 MT is at 5500 rpm; on 1.6 MT at 6750 — 1250 rpm higher. Peak torque on 1.2 MT is at 3500 rpm; on 1.6 MT at 4400 — 900 rpm later. Compression: 9.5 on 1.2 MT, 11 on 1.6 MT. Bore × stroke: 69 × 76.8 vs 79.5 × 80.5. Injection on both: Distributed injection (multi-point). Valves per cylinder on both: 4.

Performance, mpg, and what the extra 33 hp buys

1.6 MT reaches 100 1.3 s sooner (9.2 vs 10.5) and runs 11 km/h faster at the top (201 vs 190). That is the entire speed premium in the data.

Fuel: 1.6 MT uses 1.1 more in the city (9.1 vs 8), 0.4 more on the highway (5.7 vs 5.3), and 0.7 more mixed (7 vs 6.3). Same 40 L tank. Range from mixed figures and tank (arithmetic only): 1.2 MT ≈ 6.3 L/100 km → about 635 km on a full tank (40 / 6.3 × 100); 1.6 MT ≈ 7 L/100 km → about 571 km (40 / 7 × 100). Difference: 64 km less mixed range on 1.6 MT.

CO2 is not measured on either version. Eco class is not measured. Do not treat either as the “cleaner” car on paper — there is no CO2 number to rank.

Dimensions and weight: 42 kg for 33 hp

Kerb weight: 1.2 MT 1131 kg; 1.6 MT 1173 kg — 42 kg more for the 1.6. Gross weight is not measured on both. Ground clearance is not measured. Wheel sizes are not measured. Tank is 40 L on both.

Weight per horsepower: 1.2 MT 11.31 kg/hp (1131 / 100); 1.6 MT 8.82 kg/hp (1173 / 133). 1.6 MT is 2.49 kg/hp lighter in that ratio even though the car is heavier in kilograms. Power-to-weight the other way: 88.4 hp/t on 1.2 MT (100 / 1.131) vs 113.4 hp/t on 1.6 MT (133 / 1.173). That lines up with the 1.3 s 0–100 gap.

Nothing in the data changes length, width, height, or wheels between versions. If you need a number for clearance or tyre size, it is not measured — not “the same as another Renault,” just not in this set.

Which version to buy

Buy 1.2 MT if you want the lower mixed figure (6.3 vs 7), the lower city figure (8 vs 9.1), the lower kerb weight (1131 vs 1173), torque at 3500 rpm instead of 4400, and Turbo on 1149 cc. You give up 33 hp, 1.3 s to 100, and 11 km/h of top speed. Power per litre still favours this engine (87.0 vs 83.2 hp/L).

Buy 1.6 MT if you want the catalogue’s faster Roadster: 133 hp, 160 Nm, 9.2 s 0–100, 201 top speed, 8.82 kg/hp. You pay 42 kg, 0.7 L/100 km mixed, and you rev to 6750 for peak power with No boost. Compression is higher (11 vs 9.5). Fuel grade is the same 95.

There is no automatic, no AWD, and no second generation to “wait for.” Gearbox is Manual 5 and drive is FWD on both. Suspension and brakes match. The only buyer fork in the data is 1.2 MT versus 1.6 MT.

Problems / reliability: this dataset has no failure rates, recalls, or service intervals. Do not infer durability from turbo vs No boost — that would be outside the numbers.

Engine / mpg / dimensions recap for extraction: 1.2 MT — 100 hp, 152 Nm, 1149 cc, Gasoline, Turbo, Manual 5, FWD, 10.5 s, 190, mixed 6.3, kerb 1131, tank 40, clearance not measured, wheels not measured, gross not measured. 1.6 MT — 133 hp, 160 Nm, 1598 cc, Gasoline, No, Manual 5, FWD, 9.2 s, 201, mixed 7, kerb 1173, tank 40, same not measured fields. One generation, Roadster, 2010-03-01 to 2013-06-30.