Talbot 1510: which version to buy
On the Talbot 1510, “which version” is not a generation choice. There is 1 generation, built from 1980-01-01 to 1984-12-31, only as a Hatchback 5-door, with 5 listed versions. Every version is Gasoline, Manual, 4 gears, FWD, No boost, kerb weight 1050 kg, ground clearance 180 mm, front suspension Independent, spring, front brakes Disc.
On the Talbot 1510, “which version” is not a generation choice. There is 1 generation, built from 1980-01-01 to 1984-12-31, only as a Hatchback 5-door, with 5 listed versions. Every version is Gasoline, Manual, 4 gears, FWD, No boost, kerb weight 1050 kg, ground clearance 180 mm, front suspension Independent, spring, front brakes Disc. The spread that matters is engine: 69–90 hp (51–66 kW), 1360–1598 cc, carburetor versus Distributed injection (multi-point), and two 1.6 MT cars that are not interchangeable. 0–100, top speed, fuel use, tank, wheels, and gross weight are not measured on every row, so the ranking below uses power, displacement, specific output, and kg per horsepower only.
Which 1510 engine to choose
All five names in the catalogue are 1.4 MT or 1.6 MT. Three 1.4 MT and two 1.6 MT share a badge and must be split by horsepower.
| Version | hp | kW | Nm | cc | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.4 MT (72 hp) | 72 | 53 | not measured | 1360 | not measured | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 4 | FWD |
| 1.4 MT (69 hp) | 69 | 51 | not measured | 1442 | not measured | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 4 | FWD |
| 1.4 MT (84 hp) | 84 | 62 | not measured | 1442 | not measured | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 4 | FWD |
| 1.6 MT (90 hp) | 90 | 66 | 132 | 1587 | 95 | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 4 | FWD |
| 1.6 MT (73 hp) | 73 | 54 | not measured | 1598 | 92 | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 4 | FWD |
Same-name trap: 1.4 MT is 69, 72, or 84 hp; 1.6 MT is 73 or 90 hp. Buying by the badge alone can land you 21 hp apart (90 − 69).
Specs: power per litre and kg per hp
Kerb weight is 1050 kg on every version, so extra horsepower is extra power-to-weight, not extra mass in this table.
- 1.4 MT (72 hp), 1360 cc: 72 / 1.360 ≈ 52.9 hp/L; 1050 / 72 ≈ 14.6 kg/hp.
- 1.4 MT (69 hp), 1442 cc: 69 / 1.442 ≈ 47.8 hp/L; 1050 / 69 ≈ 15.2 kg/hp.
- 1.4 MT (84 hp), 1442 cc: 84 / 1.442 ≈ 58.3 hp/L; 1050 / 84 = 12.5 kg/hp.
- 1.6 MT (90 hp), 1587 cc: 90 / 1.587 ≈ 56.7 hp/L; 1050 / 90 ≈ 11.7 kg/hp.
- 1.6 MT (73 hp), 1598 cc: 73 / 1.598 ≈ 45.7 hp/L; 1050 / 73 ≈ 14.4 kg/hp.
Highest specific output is the 84 hp 1.4 MT (≈ 58.3 hp/L), not the largest engine. Lowest is the 73 hp 1.6 MT (≈ 45.7 hp/L). Best power-to-weight is the 90 hp 1.6 MT (≈ 11.7 kg/hp); worst is the 69 hp 1.4 MT (≈ 15.2 kg/hp). From weakest to strongest is +21 hp (+30% vs 69). The 90 hp car is 6 hp above the 84 hp 1.4 MT and 17 hp above the other 1.6 MT.
1.4 MT vs 1.4 MT: 69, 72 and 84 hp
The 69 hp and 84 hp 1.4 MT share 1442 cc, Gasoline, 4 Inline, Carburetor, No boost, Manual 4, FWD. The 84 hp row adds +15 hp (+22%) on the same displacement: 84 / 69 ≈ 1.22. Compression on the 84 hp car is 9.5; bore × stroke 76.7 × 78; 2 valves per cylinder. On the 69 hp 1.4 MT, compression, bore × stroke, and valves per cylinder are not measured. Torque is not measured on both.
The 72 hp 1.4 MT is the odd one: 1360 cc (82 cc smaller than 1442), yet 3 hp more than the 69 hp 1442. Compression 9.3, bore × stroke 75 × 77, 2 valves per cylinder, Carburetor. Versus the 84 hp 1.4 MT it is 12 hp down and 82 cc smaller, but ≈ 52.9 hp/L still beats the 69 hp engine’s ≈ 47.8 hp/L. If the listing only says 1.4 MT, confirm 69, 72, or 84 hp — that is a 15 hp gap on 1442 cc alone.
1.6 MT vs 1.6 MT: 73 hp carburetor or 90 hp injection
Both 1.6 MT cars are Gasoline, 4 Inline, No boost, Front, transverse, Manual 4, FWD. They are not the same engine.
The 90 hp 1.6 MT: 1587 cc, 66 kW, power at 5500 rpm, 132 Nm at 2500 rpm, 2 valves per cylinder, Distributed injection (multi-point), compression 10.2, bore × stroke 78.5 × 82, fuel 95. This is the only version with a measured torque figure.
The 73 hp 1.6 MT: 1598 cc (11 cc larger), 54 kW at 5600 rpm, Carburetor, fuel 92. Torque, valves per cylinder, compression, and bore × stroke are not measured.
90 − 73 = 17 hp (+23%). Specific output 56.7 vs 45.7 hp/L. Fuel grade 95 vs 92. The extra displacement on the 73 hp car does not buy more power; it is the least efficient litre in the table. If you want a 1.6 MT for output, the 90 hp injection row is the one that is specified; the 73 hp carburetor row is closer to the mid 1.4 MT (72 hp) than to the other 1.6.
1.4 vs 1.6: what the extra displacement buys
Displacement step 1360 → 1442 is +82 cc; 1442 → 1587 is +145 cc; 1587 → 1598 is +11 cc.
Power does not follow that ladder:
- Smallest engine, 1360 cc 1.4 MT: 72 hp.
- Mid 1442 cc: 69 or 84 hp — 15 hp of spread at one size.
- 1587 cc 1.6 MT: 90 hp, peak of the range.
- Largest, 1598 cc 1.6 MT: 73 hp, only 1 hp above the 72 hp 1.4 MT.
So 1.6 is not automatically the stronger buy. The 73 hp 1.6 MT is 11 hp below the 84 hp 1.4 MT despite 156 cc more (1598 − 1442). The 90 hp 1.6 MT is 6 hp above that 84 hp 1.4 MT with 145 cc more (1587 − 1442) plus the only Distributed injection (multi-point) and the only 132 Nm. If the question is “is 1.6 worth it versus 1.4?”, the answer is yes only for the 90 hp 1.6 MT; the 73 hp 1.6 MT loses to the 84 hp 1.4 MT on power, specific output, and kg/hp (14.4 vs 12.5).
Performance, mpg, reliability: what is not measured
0–100, top speed, city / highway / combined consumption, CO2, and eco class are not measured on all five versions. There is no mpg ranking and no timed sprint ranking in this dataset. Reliability and typical faults are not in the data; do not infer them from the numbers.
What you can still use: every version is Manual 4 and FWD, so there is no automatic-versus-manual or FWD-versus-AWD decision. Boost is No on all five. Feed is Carburetor on four versions and Distributed injection (multi-point) only on the 90 hp 1.6 MT. Fuel is not measured on the three 1.4 MT cars; on 1.6 MT it is 95 (90 hp) or 92 (73 hp).
Dimensions and weight: they do not split the versions
Kerb weight 1050 kg, clearance 180 mm, front Independent, spring, front Disc — identical on every row. Gross weight, tank, and wheel sizes are not measured. Generation count is 1, body is only Hatchback 5-door, years 1980–1984. You cannot pick a later generation, a restyle, a different body, or a lighter kerb from this catalogue. The buy decision is engine row only.
Which version to buy
If you want the strongest listed 1510: 1.6 MT at 90 hp / 66 kW / 132 Nm. It has the lowest kg/hp (≈ 11.7), the only measured torque, Distributed injection (multi-point), compression 10.2, Front, transverse, fuel 95. Versus the next petrol 1.4 MT at 84 hp you gain 6 hp and 132 Nm that the 1.4 does not quote.
If you want the strongest 1.4 without moving to 1.6: 1.4 MT at 84 hp / 62 kW, 1442 cc. Best hp/L in the set (≈ 58.3), 12.5 kg/hp, Carburetor, compression 9.5. Versus the 69 hp 1.4 MT on the same 1442 cc you gain 15 hp with no extra displacement in the table.
If you want a small-displacement 1.4 and can live without the 84 hp tune: 1.4 MT at 72 hp / 53 kW, 1360 cc. It beats the 69 hp 1442 on power (+3 hp) and hp/L (≈ 52.9 vs ≈ 47.8) despite 82 cc less.
Avoid confusing these two “bigger number on the badge” cars: 1.4 MT 69 hp is the weakest (≈ 15.2 kg/hp). 1.6 MT 73 hp is the largest engine and the lowest hp/L (≈ 45.7), only 1 hp above the 72 hp 1.4 MT. Neither is the “1.6” people assume when they see 90 hp on the other 1.6 MT.
There is no generation fork. Production window is the same (1980-01-01–1984-12-31) on all five. Extra “money” in this dataset is extra horsepower and, on one row, injection and 132 Nm — not extra weight, gears, or drive. Match the listing to 1.4 MT 69 / 72 / 84 hp or 1.6 MT 73 / 90 hp before you treat the name as the spec.