Which Pixis Joy version to buy
All four cars are a Hatchback 5-door, gasoline 658 cc, 3 cylinders Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, multi-point injection, Variable gearbox, 30 L tank, ventilated disc front brakes, drum rear brakes. Front suspension is Independent, spring on every version. Rear suspension is Semi-independent, torsion on both FWD cars and not measured on both AWD cars.
All four cars are a Hatchback 5-door, gasoline 658 cc, 3 cylinders Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, multi-point injection, Variable gearbox, 30 L tank, ventilated disc front brakes, drum rear brakes. Front suspension is Independent, spring on every version. Rear suspension is Semi-independent, torsion on both FWD cars and not measured on both AWD cars.
What actually changes:
| Version (name as in data) | Power | Torque | Boost | Drive | Kerb weight | CO2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.7 CVT 52 hp FWD | 52 hp / 38 kW @ 6800 rpm | 60 Nm @ 5200 rpm | No | FWD | 840 kg | 77 g/km |
| 0.7 CVT 52 hp AWD | 52 hp / 38 kW @ 6800 rpm | 60 Nm @ 5200 rpm | No | AWD | 890 kg | 87 g/km |
| 0.7 CVT 64 hp FWD | 64 hp / 47 kW @ 6400 rpm | 92 Nm @ 3200 rpm | Turbo | FWD | 840 kg | 86 g/km |
| 0.7 CVT 64 hp AWD | 64 hp / 47 kW @ 6400 rpm | 92 Nm @ 3200 rpm | Turbo | AWD | 890 kg | 93 g/km |
Buy the 64 hp FWD 0.7 CVT if you want the best measured power-to-weight in this model: 840 / 64 = 13.1 kg per hp. You get 12 hp more than the 52 hp cars (+23%) and 32 Nm more torque (+53%), arriving 2000 rpm earlier (3200 vs 5200). Kerb weight stays 840 kg — the same as the 52 hp FWD 0.7 CVT. CO2 is 86 g/km, 9 g/km above the lightest NA FWD car, not the highest in the range.
Buy the 52 hp FWD 0.7 CVT if the measured goal is the lowest CO2 and the simplest engine: No boost, compression 11.3 (vs 9.5 on turbo), 77 g/km CO2 — 16 g/km below the 64 hp AWD car. Weight is still 840 kg. The cost of that choice is 16.2 kg per hp (840 / 52) versus 13.1 on the turbo FWD twin.
Buy AWD only if you need AWD. Both AWD 0.7 CVT cars add 50 kg (890 vs 840). On the 52 hp engine that extra mass is +9.6% weight for the same 52 hp, or 17.1 kg/hp. On the 64 hp engine it is 13.9 kg/hp — still better than either 52 hp car. AWD also raises CO2: +10 g/km on NA (87 vs 77), +7 g/km on turbo (93 vs 86). Rear suspension for both AWD cars is not measured.
Do not buy on generation. There is no second generation and no restyling listed as a separate generation. Production of generation 1 starts 2016-08-01 with stop not measured (null). Body type does not change: Hatchback 5-door only. Modification count is 4, all 0.7 CVT.
Pixis Joy generations — what changed (and what did not)
1 generation is the whole story. Years: from August 2016. Body: Hatchback 5-door. Versions: 4. There is no later generation to compare displacement, gearbox type, or door count against. The “change” inside this generation is the four-way split of the same 0.7 CVT name: naturally aspirated vs Turbo, FWD vs AWD.
That split is arithmetic, not a restyle:
- Displacement is 658 cc on all four 0.7 CVT versions.
- Bore × stroke is 63 × 70.4 on all four.
- Fuel is 92 on all four.
- Gearbox is Variable on all four; number of gears is not measured.
- Tank is 30 L on all four.
- Front brakes Ventilated disc, rear Drum, on all four.
So a later car in this generation is not a new generation. It is one of these four power/drive combinations.
Engine specs: 52 hp vs 64 hp 0.7 CVT
Specific output (hp per litre of the listed 658 cc = 0.658 L):
- 0.7 CVT 52 hp (No boost): 52 / 0.658 ≈ 79.0 hp/L
- 0.7 CVT 64 hp (Turbo): 64 / 0.658 ≈ 97.3 hp/L
The turbo versions make 18.2 hp/L more from the same 658 cc and the same 3 Inline layout.
Torque density:
- NA: 60 / 0.658 ≈ 91.2 Nm/L at 5200 rpm
- Turbo: 92 / 0.658 ≈ 139.8 Nm/L at 3200 rpm
Peak torque on the Turbo 0.7 CVT is 53% higher and comes 38% lower in the rev range (3200 / 5200). Peak power rpm also drops: 6400 vs 6800.
Compression: 11.3 (NA) vs 9.5 (Turbo). That is the only other engine number that moves with boost. Injection stays Distributed injection (multi-point). Engine location is not measured on all four versions.
Kilowatts match the horsepower split: 38 kW on both 52 hp cars, 47 kW on both 64 hp cars (+9 kW).
Drive, weight, and CO2: what AWD costs in this catalogue
Weight per horsepower:
| 0.7 CVT | kg/hp |
|---|---|
| 64 hp FWD | 840 / 64 = 13.1 |
| 64 hp AWD | 890 / 64 = 13.9 |
| 52 hp FWD | 840 / 52 = 16.2 |
| 52 hp AWD | 890 / 52 = 17.1 |
The heaviest, least powerful pairing (52 hp AWD) carries 4.0 kg more per hp than the lightest, most powerful pairing (64 hp FWD). AWD on the turbo car still beats FWD on the NA car: 13.9 vs 16.2 kg/hp.
CO2 order from lowest to highest:
1. 0.7 CVT 52 hp FWD — 77 g/km 2. 0.7 CVT 64 hp FWD — 86 g/km (+9 vs NA FWD) 3. 0.7 CVT 52 hp AWD — 87 g/km (+10 vs NA FWD; +1 vs turbo FWD) 4. 0.7 CVT 64 hp AWD — 93 g/km (+16 vs NA FWD; +7 vs turbo FWD)
Turbo FWD and NA AWD are almost the same on CO2 (86 vs 87). Choosing AWD on the 52 hp engine costs more CO2 than choosing turbo on FWD. Choosing both turbo and AWD is the top of the table at 93 g/km.
Kerb weight only has two values: 840 kg (both FWD 0.7 CVT) and 890 kg (both AWD 0.7 CVT). Turbo does not add listed kerb mass. Gross weight is not measured on all four.
Performance and mpg (economy)
For every 0.7 CVT version:
- 0–100 km/h: not measured
- Top speed: not measured
- City consumption: not measured
- Highway consumption: not measured
- Combined consumption: not measured
- Eco class: not measured
Do not infer 0–100 from horsepower. The catalogue does not list it.
What you can use instead of mpg: CO2 (77 / 86 / 87 / 93 g/km) and tank 30 L on all versions. Range from a full tank is not measured because consumption is not measured.
Dimensions, weight, tank, wheels
- Kerb weight: 840 kg (FWD 0.7 CVT 52 hp and 64 hp) or 890 kg (AWD 0.7 CVT 52 hp and 64 hp)
- Gross weight: not measured
- Ground clearance: not measured
- Fuel tank: 30 L (all four)
- Wheel sizes: not measured
- Rear suspension: Semi-independent, torsion on FWD; not measured on AWD
- Front suspension: Independent, spring on all four
There is no generation-to-generation change in these figures because there is only 1 generation.
Reliability and problems — what the data does and does not show
There are no failure rates, recall counts, or problem lists in the data. Stating reliability would be invention.
What is listed and is the same on every 0.7 CVT: gasoline 92, Variable gearbox, Ventilated disc front / Drum rear, 30 L tank. What differs and could matter in use: No boost vs Turbo; compression 11.3 vs 9.5; FWD vs AWD and the 50 kg that comes with AWD; rear suspension specified only on FWD.
Short buyer's ranking from the numbers
1. 0.7 CVT 64 hp FWD — lowest kg/hp (13.1), 92 Nm, Turbo, kerb still 840 kg, CO2 86. Best measured “extra output for no extra listed mass.” 2. 0.7 CVT 64 hp AWD — same 64 hp / 92 Nm, +50 kg, CO2 93. Take this if AWD is required; it still beats both 52 hp cars on kg/hp. 3. 0.7 CVT 52 hp FWD — lowest CO2 (77), No turbo, 840 kg. Take this if the goal is the smallest listed emissions and the NA engine, not power. 4. 0.7 CVT 52 hp AWD — 52 hp in 890 kg (17.1 kg/hp), CO2 87. AWD without the turbo’s 32 Nm gain. Only if you need AWD and specifically the NA engine.
All four remain on sale in the data as generation 1 Hatchback 5-door cars from 2016-08-01, with production end not measured. The name on every row is 0.7 CVT; separate them by 52 hp vs 64 hp and FWD vs AWD.