Volkswagen Vento

Volkswagen Vento: which version to buy and why

If you are choosing a Volkswagen Vento, the catalogue data cover 1 generation (1991–1998), one body — Sedan, front-wheel drive (FWD) on every listed car, and 12 of 20 versions shown here.

If you are choosing a Volkswagen Vento, the catalogue data cover 1 generation (1991–1998), one body — Sedan, front-wheel drive (FWD) on every listed car, and 12 of 20 versions shown here. There is no second generation in these figures to “step up to,” so the buying question is which of the twelve named versions matches the job: the light 1.4 MT pair, the measured 1.6 MT 75 hp daily driver, the denser 1.6 MT 101 hp, the slow 1.6 AT 75 hp, the two 1.8 power levels with Manual or Automatic, the 2.0 pair, or the 2.8 MT 174 hp. Every version here is Gasoline, No boost, engine Front, transverse, fuel 95, tank 55 L.

Generations: what actually changes between versions

1 generation (1991-01-01 to 1998-12-31) is the whole production window. Body is Sedan. The data list 20 modifications for the generation and show 12. Chassis language is shared: Independent, spring front, Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem rear. Front brakes are Ventilated disc on all twelve. Rear brakes split the range: Drum on both 1.4 MT cars, both 1.6 MT cars, 1.6 AT, both 1.8 MT cars and both 1.8 AT cars; Disc on 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT and 2.8 MT. Ground clearance is 130 mm on both 1.4 MT versions, on 1.6 MT 101 hp and on 1.6 AT; it is 140 mm on 1.6 MT 75 hp, all four 1.8 versions, both 2.0 versions and 2.8 MT. Wheel sizes are not measured on every version.

Engines and specs: the twelve named versions

Injection is not the same even when the name is. Distributed injection (multi-point) is on 1.4 MT 55 hp, both 1.6 MT versions, 1.6 AT, both 2.0 versions and 2.8 MT. Central injection (single-point or single- point) is on 1.4 MT 60 hp and all four 1.8 versions. Valves per cylinder are 2 throughout. Compression: 10.2 on 1.4 MT 55 hp versus 9 on 1.4 MT 60 hp; 10.5 on 1.6 MT 75 hp versus 10.3 on 1.6 MT 101 hp versus 9.3 on 1.6 AT; 9 on both 1.8 75 hp cars versus 10 on both 1.8 90 hp cars; 10 on both 2.0 cars and on 2.8 MT. Bore × stroke: 76.5 × 75.6 on both 1.4 MT; 81 × 77.4 on both 1.6 MT; 76.5 × 86.9 on 1.6 AT; 81 × 86.4 on all four 1.8; 82.5 × 92.8 on both 2.0; 81 × 90.3 on 2.8 MT.

Power per litre (hp ÷ displacement in litres): 1.4 MT 55 hp ≈ 39.6 hp/L; 1.4 MT 60 hp ≈ 43.1; 1.6 MT 75 hp ≈ 47.0; 1.6 AT 75 hp ≈ 46.9; 1.8 MT / 1.8 AT 75 hp ≈ 42.1; 1.8 MT / 1.8 AT 90 hp ≈ 50.5; 2.0 MT / 2.0 AT ≈ 58.0; 2.8 MT ≈ 62.3; 1.6 MT 101 hp ≈ 63.3. The densest engine in this list is therefore 1.6 MT 101 hp, not the largest 2.8 MT.

Performance, mpg and what the extra displacement buys

0–100 km/h and top speed are not measured for both 1.4 MT versions. Where they are measured:

• 1.6 MT 75 hp: 14.4 s, 168 km/h
• 1.6 MT 101 hp: 11.7 s, 188 km/h — 2.7 s quicker and 20 km/h faster than the 75 hp 1.6 MT, same 1595 cc
• 1.6 AT 75 hp: 16.8 s, 164 km/h — 2.4 s slower and 4 km/h slower than 1.6 MT 75 hp
• 1.8 MT 75 hp and 1.8 AT 75 hp: both 14.6 s, 168 km/h — 0.2 s slower than 1.6 MT 75 hp at the same 168 km/h, despite 186 cc more (1781 vs 1595)
• 1.8 MT 90 hp and 1.8 AT 90 hp: both 12.7 s, 178 km/h — 1.9 s and 10 km/h better than the 75 hp 1.8 pair; still 1.0 s slower and 10 km/h slower than 1.6 MT 101 hp
• 2.0 MT: 10.6 s, 198 km/h
• 2.0 AT: 12.2 s, 193 km/h — Automatic costs 1.6 s and 5 km/h versus 2.0 MT
• 2.8 MT: 8 s, 224 km/h — 2.6 s and 26 km/h better than 2.0 MT; 3.7 s and 36 km/h better than 1.6 MT 101 hp

Fuel use is not measured (city / highway / mixed) for both 1.4 MT, both 1.8 MT, both 1.8 AT, 2.0 MT and 2.8 MT. Measured mixed figures: 1.6 MT 75 hp 7.5 L/100 km (city 9.5, highway 5.8); 1.6 MT 101 hp 8 (city 11.1, highway 6.2) — 0.5 L/100 km more mixed, 1.6 more in town, 0.4 more on the highway for 26 hp and 19 Nm. 1.6 AT 75 hp mixed 8 (city 10.4, highway 7.1) — same mixed number as 1.6 MT 101 hp, but 0.9 more city and 1.3 more highway than 1.6 MT 75 hp. 2.0 AT mixed 9.2 (city 13.4, highway 6.8) — 1.7 L/100 km more mixed than 1.6 MT 75 hp and 1.2 more than 1.6 MT 101 hp; city is 3.9 above 1.6 MT 75 hp. CO2 is not measured except 2.0 AT at 232. Eco class is not measured on all twelve.

Dimensions, weight and kg per horsepower

Kerb / gross / clearance / tank:

• 1.4 MT 55 hp and 1.4 MT 60 hp: 1060 / 1565 kg, 130 mm, 55 L — payload 505 kg
• 1.6 MT 75 hp: 1180 / 1610 kg, 140 mm, 55 L — payload 430 kg; 120 kg heavier kerb than 1.4 MT
• 1.6 MT 101 hp: 1180 / 1590 kg, 130 mm, 55 L — payload 410 kg
• 1.6 AT 75 hp: kerb not measured / 1565 kg, 130 mm, 55 L
• 1.8 MT 75 hp, 1.8 AT 75 hp, 1.8 MT 90 hp, 1.8 AT 90 hp: 1180 / 1590 kg, 140 mm, 55 L — payload 410 kg, same kerb as both 1.6 MT cars
• 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT: 1235 / 1630 kg, 140 mm, 55 L — 55 kg more kerb than the 1180 kg group; payload 395 kg
• 2.8 MT: 1340 / 1725 kg, 140 mm, 55 L — 160 kg more kerb than 1.6 MT / 1.8; payload 385 kg, the smallest payload in the measured set

kg per hp (kerb ÷ hp): 1.4 MT 55 hp ≈ 19.3 kg/hp; 1.4 MT 60 hp ≈ 17.7; 1.6 MT 75 hp and 1.8 MT / 1.8 AT 75 hp ≈ 15.7; 1.8 MT / 1.8 AT 90 hp ≈ 13.1; 1.6 MT 101 hp ≈ 11.7; 2.0 MT / 2.0 AT ≈ 10.7; 2.8 MT ≈ 7.7. 1.6 AT cannot be ranked on this axis because kerb is not measured.

Which version to choose

Buy 1.6 MT 75 hp if you want the cheapest measured daily spec. It is the only version with a full 0–100, top speed and three-way consumption set at the low end of the measured engines: 14.4 s, 168 km/h, mixed 7.5 L/100 km. Versus 1.8 MT 75 hp it is 0.2 s quicker to 100 at the same 168 km/h, 186 cc smaller, 14 Nm less (126 vs 140), same 1180 kg kerb, and it has Distributed injection (multi-point) instead of Central injection (single-point or single- point). Versus 1.6 AT 75 hp it is 2.4 s and 4 km/h quicker and uses 0.5 L/100 km less mixed. Ground clearance is 140 mm, 10 mm more than 1.6 MT 101 hp.

Buy 1.6 MT 101 hp if you want the most power per litre and the best 1.6 without stepping to 2.0. Same 1595 cc and 1180 kg as 1.6 MT 75 hp, +26 hp, +19 Nm, peak torque 1200 rpm later (3800 vs 2600), 0–100 2.7 s shorter, top speed +20 km/h, mixed +0.5 L/100 km. It beats 1.8 MT 90 hp on paper (11.7 s / 188 km/h vs 12.7 s / 178 km/h) with 186 cc less and the same 145 Nm. kg/hp ≈ 11.7 versus ≈ 13.1 for the 90 hp 1.8. Trade-off: clearance 130 mm versus 140 mm on 1.6 MT 75 hp and the 1.8 / 2.0 / 2.8 group.

Skip 1.6 AT 75 hp unless Automatic is the requirement. It is the slowest measured Vento here (16.8 s, 164 km/h). Versus 1.8 AT 75 hp it is 2.2 s slower and 4 km/h slower despite similar 75 hp; versus 1.8 AT 90 hp it is 4.1 s and 14 km/h behind. Displacement is 1598 cc with a longer stroke (76.5 × 86.9) than the 1.6 MT pair (81 × 77.4). Kerb is not measured.

The two 1.4 MT versions are the lightest, not the best documented. Both 1060 kg, 120 kg under the 1.6/1.8 kerb, payload 505 kg (largest measured). 1.4 MT 55 hp has Distributed injection (multi-point) and compression 10.2; 1.4 MT 60 hp has Central injection (single-point or single- point) and compression 9, +5 hp at the same 116 Nm. 0–100, top speed and all three consumption figures are not measured on both, so you cannot rank them against 1.6 MT 75 hp on pace or mpg from this catalogue.

Do not buy 1.8 75 hp for “more engine.” 1.8 MT 75 hp and 1.8 AT 75 hp match each other at 14.6 s and 168 km/h — Automatic does not change the published pace at this power. Both sit 0.2 s behind 1.6 MT 75 hp. You gain 14 Nm (140 vs 126) and 186 cc; you lose the measured mpg of the 1.6 (all 1.8 consumption is not measured). If you want Automatic and 75 hp, 1.8 AT 75 hp is still 2.2 s quicker than 1.6 AT 75 hp.

Buy 1.8 MT 90 hp or 1.8 AT 90 hp only if you need that gearbox at mid power. Same 12.7 s and 178 km/h on Manual and Automatic — unlike 2.0, the 90 hp 1.8 does not lose a published 0–100 or top speed when you pick Automatic. Versus 1.6 MT 101 hp you give up 11 hp, 1.0 s and 10 km/h for 10 mm more clearance (140 vs 130) and a 4-speed Automatic option the 101 hp 1.6 MT does not have. Torque is the same 145 Nm, arriving 1300 rpm earlier (2500 vs 3800).

Buy 2.0 MT if you want the fastest four-cylinder Manual with rear Disc. 115 hp, 166 Nm, 10.6 s, 198 km/h. Versus 1.6 MT 101 hp: +14 hp, +21 Nm, −1.1 s, +10 km/h, +55 kg, clearance 140 vs 130 mm, rear brakes Disc vs Drum. Consumption for 2.0 MT is not measured. Versus 2.8 MT you give up 59 hp, 69 Nm, 2.6 s and 26 km/h and keep a 4 Inline instead of 6 V-shaped.

Buy 2.0 AT if Automatic is required and you still want 115 hp. It is the only Automatic with 115 hp, and the only version with a measured CO2 figure (232). Cost versus 2.0 MT: +1.6 s, −5 km/h, same 1235 kg. Mixed 9.2 L/100 km is the highest measured consumption in the set.

Buy 2.8 MT if the numbers that matter are 8 s, 224 km/h and ≈ 7.7 kg/hp. It is the only 6 V-shaped engine, the only 174 hp / 235 Nm / 2792 cc car, the heaviest kerb (1340 kg) and the smallest payload (385 kg). Fuel, CO2 and eco class are not measured. Rear brakes are Disc, like the 2.0 pair. There is no 2.8 AT in the twelve shown versions.

Manual vs Automatic, in one line: on 1.8 75 hp and 1.8 90 hp the published 0–100 and top speed do not change with the gearbox; on 1.6 the Automatic is 2.4 s slower than the 75 hp Manual; on 2.0 the Automatic is 1.6 s slower than the Manual. All Automatics here are 4 speeds; all Manuals are 5.

Reliability / problems (what these data can and cannot say). The catalogue does not record failure rates. What it does record: every version is Gasoline, No boost, FWD, Front, transverse, fuel 95, 55 L tank; eight of twelve use rear Drum; 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT and 2.8 MT use rear Disc. Eight versions have no measured mixed consumption. Both 1.4 MT cars and 2.8 MT have no measured 0–100. 1.6 AT has no measured kerb. Those gaps are the practical risk when comparing “economy” or “pace” outside the 1.6 MT / 1.6 AT / 2.0 AT subset.

Short pick: measured economy and completeness — 1.6 MT 75 hp. Measured pace in the 1.6/1.8 band — 1.6 MT 101 hp. Automatic without the slowest 0–100 — 1.8 AT 90 hp (same 12.7 s as 1.8 MT 90 hp) or 2.0 AT if you want 115 hp. Fastest car in the file — 2.8 MT. Lightest — either 1.4 MT, knowing 0–100, top speed and mpg are not measured.