Volkswagen Iltis

Which Iltis version to buy

The extra 5 hp on 1.7 MT is 7.1% more than 1.6 MT (75 − 70). Displacement is 114 cc larger (1714 − 1600). Specific output is almost the same: 1.6 MT makes 43.8 hp per litre (70 ÷ 1.600); 1.7 MT makes 43.8 hp per litre (75 ÷ 1.714).

1.7 MT is the stronger of the two on the numbers that exist: 75 hp (55 kW) at 5000 rpm from 1714 cc Gasoline, Inline 4, 2 valves per cylinder, No boost, Carburetor. 1.6 MT is 70 hp (51 kW) from 1600 cc Diesel, Inline 4, Turbo. Power at rpm for 1.6 MT is not measured. Torque (Nm) and torque rpm are not measured on either version.

The extra 5 hp on 1.7 MT is 7.1% more than 1.6 MT (75 − 70). Displacement is 114 cc larger (1714 − 1600). Specific output is almost the same: 1.6 MT makes 43.8 hp per litre (70 ÷ 1.600); 1.7 MT makes 43.8 hp per litre (75 ÷ 1.714). The Turbo Diesel and the naturally aspirated Gasoline therefore land on the same power density; the 5 hp gap is almost entirely the 114 cc extra capacity, not a more highly stressed engine.

Weight per horsepower favours 1.7 MT: 17.3 kg/hp (1300 ÷ 75) versus 18.6 kg/hp on 1.6 MT (1300 ÷ 70). That is 1.2 kg less vehicle mass per horsepower. Gross-to-kerb payload is identical: 750 kg (2050 − 1300) on both, so neither version buys extra load rating.

Top speed is the same 130 km/h on 1.6 MT and 1.7 MT. 0–100 km/h is 21 s on 1.7 MT and not measured on 1.6 MT — do not treat the Diesel as “slower to 100” from this catalogue; that figure is simply not measured.

Specs: 1.6 MT vs 1.7 MT

1.7 MT also lists Carburetor and 2 valves per cylinder. Fuel system, valves per cylinder, and engine location are not measured on 1.6 MT. Compression ratio, bore and stroke, and fuel grade are not measured on both.

Performance, mpg, and economy

Only 1.7 MT has a full economy set: 10.6 L/100 km city, 6.1 L/100 km highway, 7.8 L/100 km mixed. City use is 4.5 L/100 km higher than highway (10.6 − 6.1). Mixed sits 1.7 L/100 km above highway (7.8 − 6.1). City, highway, and mixed consumption on 1.6 MT are not measured. CO2 and eco class are not measured on both.

The 85 L tank is the same. On 1.7 MT mixed 7.8 L/100 km, that tank is 10.9 times mixed consumption (85 ÷ 7.8). Highway 6.1 L/100 km gives 13.9 tank-to-highway (85 ÷ 6.1). Those range-style ratios cannot be written for 1.6 MT because its consumption is not measured.

If the buying question is “which uses less fuel,” this dataset cannot answer it: Diesel 1.6 MT has no L/100 km figures here. The measured mpg story belongs only to Gasoline 1.7 MT.

Dimensions, weight, and what does not change

Kerb 1300 kg, gross 2050 kg, clearance 220 mm, tank 85 L, wheel size not measured — identical on 1.6 MT and 1.7 MT. Front suspension Independent, leaf spring; rear Dependent, leaf spring; front Drum; rear Drum — identical. There is no second generation to pick for a restyle, extra doors, or a different body: production is 1978-01-01 to 1988-12-31, one generation, SUV cabriolet, two versions.

Ground clearance 220 mm with 1300 kg kerb is 0.169 mm of clearance per kilogram of kerb (220 ÷ 1300). That ratio is the same whichever engine you take. Payload 750 kg is 57.7% of kerb (750 ÷ 1300) on both.

Generations: what changed (and what did not)

There is one generation only, so there is no later Iltis that added power, cut weight, or switched to disc brakes in this data. Inside that generation the only split is 1.6 MT versus 1.7 MT. Shared across both: AWD, Manual 5, 130 km/h, 1300 / 2050 kg, 220 mm, 85 L, leaf springs, drums, 1978–1988.

What actually differs:

• Fuel: Diesel + Turbo (1.6 MT) versus Gasoline + No boost + Carburetor (1.7 MT).
• Output: 70 hp / 51 kW versus 75 hp / 55 kW (5 hp, 4 kW).
• Capacity: 1600 cc versus 1714 cc.
• Peak power rpm: not measured versus 5000.
• Valves per cylinder: not measured versus 2.
• 0–100: not measured versus 21 s.
• Consumption: not measured versus 10.6 / 6.1 / 7.8 L/100 km.

Arithmetic that is not a reason to switch: specific output (both ~43.8 hp/L), top speed (both 130), mass and clearance (both 1300 kg / 220 mm), tank (both 85 L), gears and drive (both Manual 5 AWD).

Reliability and problems: what the numbers can and cannot say

This catalogue has no failure rates, recall lists, or rust scores. What it does show is hardware that is the same on both versions except the engine: drum brakes front and rear, leaf springs, AWD, Manual 5. Buying 1.7 MT does not buy different brakes, a different axle layout, or a different body. Buying 1.6 MT does not buy a lighter kerb or more clearance.

1.6 MT is the Turbo Diesel path: 70 hp from 1600 cc. 1.7 MT is the Carburetor Gasoline path: 75 hp from 1714 cc, 2 valves per cylinder, peak listed at 5000 rpm. If you need a measured 0–100 and measured L/100 km, only 1.7 MT has them (21 s; 10.6 / 6.1 / 7.8). If you need Diesel and Turbo in the nameplate, only 1.6 MT has them — with the explicit gap that torque, 0–100, and mpg are not measured for that version.

Which version to choose

Choose 1.7 MT if you want the higher listed output (75 hp vs 70 hp), the better weight-to-power (17.3 vs 18.6 kg/hp), a published 0–100 of 21 s, and published city/highway/mixed consumption. You pay for a 1714 cc Gasoline Inline 4 with No boost and a Carburetor, not for a different chassis.

Choose 1.6 MT if the requirement is Diesel and Turbo at 70 hp / 51 kW and 1600 cc. You do not get a different top speed, tank, weight, clearance, gearbox, or drive. You also do not get measured torque, 0–100, or mpg in this dataset — those remain not measured.

Do not choose by generation: there is only 1 generation (1978–1988), SUV cabriolet, two versions. Do not choose by “more litres of power”: 1.6 MT and 1.7 MT both sit at 43.8 hp per litre. The 5 hp on 1.7 MT tracks the 114 cc extra displacement, not a jump in specific output. Wheel sizes are not measured on either, so tyre choice is not a differentiator here.

Exact version names to keep as anchors: 1.6 MT, 1.7 MT.