Toyota WiLL Cypha

Toyota WiLL Cypha: which version to buy — 1.3 AT vs 1.5 AT

The Toyota WiLL Cypha was sold in one generation (October 2002–August 2005) as a Mini 5-doors with two versions: 1.3 AT and 1.5 AT. There is no later generation and no restyling in the data, so the buying choice is not “which year of the model,” it is which of these two factory combinations you want.

The Toyota WiLL Cypha was sold in one generation (October 2002–August 2005) as a Mini 5-doors with two versions: 1.3 AT and 1.5 AT. There is no later generation and no restyling in the data, so the buying choice is not “which year of the model,” it is which of these two factory combinations you want. Both use a Gasoline engine, Automatic gearbox with 4 gears, the same 165 km/h top speed, the same 940 kg kerb weight, the same 45 L tank and the same 130 mm ground clearance. The split is power, displacement, drive and a few engine internals.

Which generation changed what

1 generation (2002-10-01 to 2005-08-31) is the entire catalogue: Mini 5-doors, 2 versions, both on sale for the full window. Nothing in the data shows a mid-cycle body change, a second generation, or a later engine family. If you are comparing “early vs late Cypha,” the numbers below do not move with the calendar — 1.3 AT and 1.5 AT keep the same outputs from start to stop.

That is why generation-to-generation arithmetic is empty here: there is no second set of horsepower, weight or clearance figures to subtract. The useful comparison is version-to-version inside this one generation.

Specs that actually differ: 1.3 AT vs 1.5 AT

Shared hardware that does not separate the two: Front, transverse engine, Distributed injection (multi-point), 4 valves per cylinder, Automatic with 4 gears, Ventilated disc front brakes, Drum rear brakes, Independent, spring suspension front and rear, fuel grade 95.

What the extra displacement buys, in arithmetic on these figures:

• Power: 1.5 AT has 17 hp more than 1.3 AT (105 − 88), which is about 19% more peak output. In kilowatts that is 12 kW (77 − 65). Both peaks are listed at 6000 rpm.
• Torque: 1.5 AT has 12 Nm more (135 − 123). Peak torque arrives later on 1.5 AT (4800 rpm vs 4400 rpm on 1.3 AT).
• Displacement: 198 cc more (1497 − 1299).
• Power per litre: 1.3 AT is 88 / 1.299 ≈ 67.7 hp per litre. 1.5 AT is 105 / 1.497 ≈ 70.1 hp per litre — a small specific-output edge for the larger engine, not a different state of tune in the data.
• Compression: 1.3 AT is 10.5; 1.5 AT is 10. Bore × stroke is 75 × 73.5 on 1.3 AT and 79 × 77 on 1.5 AT.
• Drive: 1.3 AT is FWD; 1.5 AT is AWD. That is the only drivetrain fork in the model.

There is no third version, no manual, no turbo (Boost: No on both), and no extra body. If a listing is not named 1.3 AT or 1.5 AT, it is outside this catalogue.

Engine and drivetrain: what the extra money would be paying for

The data has no prices, so “extra money” here means extra factory specification, not a sticker.

1.3 AT is the lighter-duty pairing: 88 hp, 123 Nm, 1299 cc, FWD. You get the same Automatic 4-speed and the same Mini 5-doors shell. Peak torque is 400 rpm earlier than on 1.5 AT, which is the only rpm advantage on the smaller engine.

1.5 AT is the higher-output pairing and the all-wheel-drive pairing in one step: 105 hp, 135 Nm, 1497 cc, AWD. You cannot buy AWD with the 1.3 engine in these data, and you cannot buy FWD with the 1.5 engine. Choosing drive also chooses the engine.

Weight does not rise with AWD in the measured kerb figures: both versions are 940 kg. That makes the power-to-weight gap clean:

• 1.3 AT: 940 / 88 ≈ 10.7 kg per hp
• 1.5 AT: 940 / 105 ≈ 9.0 kg per hp

1.5 AT therefore carries about 1.7 kg less per horsepower at the same kerb mass. Gross vehicle weight is not measured on either version, so you cannot compare payload.

Performance, mpg and what is not measured

Top speed is 165 km/h on 1.3 AT and 165 km/h on 1.5 AT. The 17 hp and AWD of 1.5 AT do not raise the listed maximum.

0–100 km/h is not measured for 1.3 AT and not measured for 1.5 AT. Do not treat the power gap as a proven sprint gap.

Fuel use is not measured in city, highway or mixed cycles for either version. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. Anyone ranking these two on mpg is ranking something this dataset does not contain. Tank size is the same 45 L, so range cannot be calculated from consumption that was not measured.

Reliability and known problems are not in the launch data. This article does not invent failure rates.

Dimensions, weight and clearance (same on both)

Ground clearance 130 mm and body Mini 5-doors do not change with AWD. Wheel sizes are not measured, so tyre packages cannot be used as a buying filter here.

Which version to choose

Choose 1.3 AT if you want FWD, the smaller 1299 cc Gasoline engine, 88 hp and 123 Nm, and you do not need AWD. You give up 17 hp and 12 Nm. You keep the same 165 km/h cap, the same 940 kg, the same 45 L tank and the same 130 mm clearance. City/highway/mixed mpg remain not measured, so economy is not a documented reason to pick this version.

Choose 1.5 AT if you want AWD and the stronger engine in one package: 105 hp, 135 Nm, 1497 cc. Specific output is slightly higher (≈70.1 vs ≈67.7 hp/L) and mass per horsepower is lower (≈9.0 vs ≈10.7 kg/hp) at identical 940 kg. You do not get a higher listed top speed. You still have 0–100, consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight and wheel sizes not measured.

There is no “middle” Cypha: no FWD 1.5, no AWD 1.3, no other gearbox. With one generation and two versions, the decision is FWD 88 hp (1.3 AT) versus AWD 105 hp (1.5 AT).