Tofas Murat 124

Tofas Murat 124: which version to buy

Between the two Tofas Murat 124 versions listed for 1 generation (1971–1977, Sedan), 1.3 MT is the stronger pick on every measured performance number: 70 hp versus 64 hp, 96 Nm versus 89 Nm, 18 s versus 22 s to 100 km/h, and 145 km/h versus 140 km/h top speed.

Between the two Tofas Murat 124 versions listed for 1 generation (1971–1977, Sedan), 1.3 MT is the stronger pick on every measured performance number: 70 hp versus 64 hp, 96 Nm versus 89 Nm, 18 s versus 22 s to 100 km/h, and 145 km/h versus 140 km/h top speed. 1.2 MT matches 1.3 MT on kerb weight (955 kg), gross weight (1355 kg), tank (39 l), ground clearance (170 mm), gearbox (Manual, 4), and drive (RWD). Fuel consumption, CO2, eco class, and wheel sizes are not measured for both. There is no second generation to compare.

Specs that actually differ: 1.2 MT vs 1.3 MT

The catalogue has 1 generation and 2 versions. Both are Sedan, Gasoline, Inline 4, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, engine Front, longitudinal, Carburetor, compression 8.5, fuel 92, Manual 4, RWD. Chassis figures are identical. The buy decision is therefore engine size and the four performance figures that move with it.

1.3 MT adds 96 cc (1294 − 1198), 6 hp (70 − 64), and 7 Nm (96 − 89). Peak power sits at 5600 rpm on both; peak torque sits at 3400 rpm on both. Stroke is 66 mm on both; bore is 76 mm on 1.2 MT and 79 mm on 1.3 MT (3 mm). Extra displacement comes from a wider bore, not a longer stroke.

Power per litre: 1.2 MT 64 / 1.198 ≈ 53.4 hp/l; 1.3 MT 70 / 1.294 ≈ 54.1 hp/l. The larger engine is not a different tune; it is almost the same specific output on a bigger capacity. Torque per litre: 1.2 MT 89 / 1.198 ≈ 74.3 Nm/l; 1.3 MT 96 / 1.294 ≈ 74.2 Nm/l.

Performance and economy: what the extra 96 cc buys

1.2 MT: 0–100 22 s, top speed 140 km/h. City / highway / combined consumption not measured. CO2 not measured. Eco class not measured.

1.3 MT: 0–100 18 s, top speed 145 km/h. City / highway / combined consumption not measured. CO2 not measured. Eco class not measured.

Arithmetic on those figures: 1.3 MT reaches 100 km/h 4 s sooner (22 − 18), about 18% less time. Top speed is 5 km/h higher (145 − 140), about 3.6%. Power is 9.4% higher (6 / 64); torque is 7.9% higher (7 / 89). Displacement is 8.0% higher (96 / 1198). Acceleration moves more than top speed.

Kerb weight is 955 kg on both, so weight per horsepower is 955 / 64 ≈ 14.9 kg/hp on 1.2 MT and 955 / 70 ≈ 13.6 kg/hp on 1.3 MT. 1.3 MT carries about 1.3 kg less per horsepower. Gross weight is 1355 kg on both; payload by subtraction is 1355 − 955 = 400 kg on both. The extra 6 hp does not cut payload.

Economy cannot break the tie: consumption is not measured on 1.2 MT and not measured on 1.3 MT. You cannot claim the smaller engine uses less fuel from this dataset.

Dimensions and weight: nothing to choose

Front suspension is Independent, spring on both. Rear suspension is Dependent, spring on both. Front brakes are Disc on both. Rear brakes are Drum on both. Ground clearance 170 mm does not change with engine. Tank 39 l does not change. Wheel sizes are not measured, so tyre choice is not a version filter here.

If the question is cabin, tank, clearance, or how much the car may weigh loaded, 1.2 MT and 1.3 MT are the same car with a different bore.

Generations: there is only one set of years

1 generation ran 1971-01-01 to 1977-12-31, body Sedan, 2 versions: 1.2 MT and 1.3 MT. Both versions share those dates. There is no restyling row and no later generation in the data, so there is no “later chassis” or “updated gearbox” to buy. The generation question collapses to the engine question.

What did not change between versions (same numbers, not a story): Manual 4, RWD, Carburetor, compression 8.5, fuel 92, 4 Inline cylinders, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Front, longitudinal, power peak 5600 rpm, torque peak 3400 rpm, kerb 955 kg, gross 1355 kg, tank 39 l, clearance 170 mm.

Which version to choose

Choose 1.3 MT if the point of the purchase is the measured gap in pace: 70 hp and 96 Nm from 1294 cc, 18 s to 100 km/h, 145 km/h. Versus 1.2 MT that is +6 hp, +7 Nm, +96 cc, −4 s to 100 km/h, +5 km/h top speed, at the same 955 kg. Specific output is almost equal (≈54.1 vs ≈53.4 hp/l), so you are buying capacity, not a hotter state of tune.

Choose 1.2 MT only if you specifically want the 1198 cc engine (64 hp, 89 Nm, bore 76 × 66). It is not lighter, not a different gearbox, and not a different drive. It is slower on the two speed tests that exist: 22 s and 140 km/h. There is no consumption figure that would justify it as the “economy” Murat 124.

Do not choose by generation, body, fuel, or drivetrain. There is 1 generation, one Sedan body, Gasoline only, Manual only, RWD only. Do not choose by mpg: city, highway, and combined are not measured. Do not choose by wheels: sizes are not measured. Do not choose by eco class or CO2: both not measured.

Price is not in this dataset, so “what the extra money buys” can only mean what the extra 96 cc buys in the table: 6 hp, 7 Nm, 4 s off 0–100, 5 km/h on top speed, and ≈1.3 kg/hp less mass per horsepower, with tank, weights, clearance, and the rest of the chassis unchanged.

Short answer: for Tofas Murat 124, 1.3 MT is the version to buy on the numbers that were measured; 1.2 MT is the same Sedan with a smaller bore and every recorded performance figure worse.