Willys CJ: which 2.2 MT to choose (75 hp vs 60 hp)
The Willys CJ ran as 1 generation from 1949 to 1968 as an SUV cabriolet. Both catalogue versions share the name 2.2 MT. They are not the same car: one is 75 hp, the other 60 hp. Same 2199 cm³ Gasoline engine family, same 3-speed Manual, same AWD, same 40 L tank, same gross weight 1587 kg.
The Willys CJ ran as 1 generation from 1949 to 1968 as an SUV cabriolet. Both catalogue versions share the name 2.2 MT. They are not the same car: one is 75 hp, the other 60 hp. Same 2199 cm³ Gasoline engine family, same 3-speed Manual, same AWD, same 40 L tank, same gross weight 1587 kg. The 75 hp 2.2 MT is the stronger, heavier, lower-clearance spec; the 60 hp 2.2 MT is the lighter, taller, lower-compression spec. There is no second generation to wait for.
Generations: what actually changed (one generation only)
1 generation (1949–1968) is the whole model. Body: SUV cabriolet. Versions in the data: 2, both labelled 2.2 MT. Years on both versions match the generation: 1949-01-01 to 1968-12-31. No restyling is listed as a separate generation. Choosing a CJ is therefore not “which generation,” it is “which 2.2 MT.”
Engines and specs: same name, different output
| Version | hp | kW | Nm | Displacement (cm³) | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.2 MT (75 hp) | 75 | 55 | 154 | 2199 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 3 | AWD |
| 2.2 MT (60 hp) | 60 | 45 | 142 | 2199 | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | Manual, 3 | AWD |
Both peak power at 4000 rpm and peak torque at 2000 rpm. Both: Front, longitudinal, Carburetor, 2 valves per cylinder, fuel grade 76, bore × stroke 79.37 × 111.12. Compression is the mechanical split: 7.5 on the 75 hp 2.2 MT versus 6.48 on the 60 hp 2.2 MT (difference 1.02).
Power per litre (hp ÷ 2.199 L): 34.1 hp/L (75 hp) versus 27.3 hp/L (60 hp). The 75 hp spec makes 15 hp more (+25%) and 12 Nm more (+8.5%) from the same 2199 cm³.
Performance and economy: not measured on both
0–100, top speed, city / highway / combined consumption, CO2, and eco class are not measured for the 75 hp 2.2 MT and not measured for the 60 hp 2.2 MT. Do not treat a blank as “this SUV cabriolet has no such parameter.” The catalogue does not give a figure.
What you can rank without inventing speed: specific output and mass per horsepower (next section). Those are arithmetic on listed hp and kerb weight, not stand-ins for 0–100.
Dimensions and weight: where the two 2.2 MT diverge
Wheel size is not measured on both versions.
| 2.2 MT (75 hp) | 2.2 MT (60 hp) | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kerb weight, kg | 1017 | 1000 | 75 hp is 17 kg heavier |
| Gross weight, kg | 1587 | 1587 | 0 |
| Payload (gross − kerb), kg | 570 | 587 | 60 hp carries 17 kg more |
| Ground clearance, mm | 203 | 222 | 60 hp is 19 mm taller |
| Tank, L | 40 | 40 | 0 |
| kg per hp (kerb ÷ hp) | 13.56 | 16.67 | 75 hp is 3.11 kg/hp lighter to drive |
Chassis language is identical: front Dependent, leaf spring, rear Dependent, leaf spring, front Drum, rear Drum. Ground clearance and kerb weight are the only dimensional numbers that separate the two 2.2 MT rows.
Which version to choose
There is 1 generation and 2 versions. Extra “generation money” does not exist in this dataset. The extra you pay for (in capability, not in a listed price — prices are not in the data) is 15 hp, 10 kW, 12 Nm, and 1.02 points of compression on the 75 hp 2.2 MT. What you give up versus the 60 hp 2.2 MT: 17 kg extra kerb, 17 kg less payload, 19 mm less ground clearance.
Choose the 75 hp 2.2 MT if the job is road load and specific output. 75 hp at 1017 kg is 13.56 kg/hp; 60 hp at 1000 kg is 16.67 kg/hp. The stronger 2.2 MT has ~19% less mass per horsepower even though it is the heavier vehicle. Compression 7.5 versus 6.48 is the listed reason the same 2199 cm³, 4 Inline, Carburetor, No boost engine is rated 75 / 55 instead of 60 / 45. Torque still arrives at 2000 rpm on both, so the 75 hp car is not a different rpm character — it is more Nm at the same mark (154 vs 142). AWD, Manual 3, 40 L tank, and SUV cabriolet body are the same, so you are not buying a different drivetrain layout.
Choose the 60 hp 2.2 MT if clearance and payload beat peak hp. 222 mm versus 203 mm is 19 mm more space under the vehicle — the largest relative chassis gap in the table (~9%). Kerb 1000 kg versus 1017 kg, same gross 1587 kg, so payload is 587 kg versus 570 kg. Compression 6.48 is lower; the data do not say that makes it “more reliable,” only that output is 60 hp / 142 Nm. Fuel is still 76, induction still Carburetor, boost still No. Economy is not measured, so you cannot pick the 60 hp 2.2 MT as the “mpg” car.
Do not choose by generation. Both versions start 1949-01-01 and stop 1968-12-31. A later year in that window is not a second generation in this catalogue.
Do not choose by gearbox, drive, or body. Manual, 3 gears, AWD, SUV cabriolet — identical. Do not choose by tank or wheels: tank 40 L both; wheels not measured both. Do not choose by 0–100 or top speed: not measured both.
Arithmetic summary for a buyer
- Power gap: 15 hp / 10 kW / 12 Nm, all in favour of 2.2 MT (75 hp).
- Specific power: 34.1 vs 27.3 hp/L — same 2199 cm³.
- Mass per hp: 13.56 vs 16.67 kg/hp — 75 hp 2.2 MT wins the load-to-power ratio.
- Clearance: 203 vs 222 mm — 60 hp 2.2 MT wins ground gap.
- Weight: 1017 vs 1000 kg kerb; payload 570 vs 587 kg; gross tied at 1587 kg.
- Unmeasured on both, so not a tie-breaker: 0–100, top speed, consumption, CO2, eco class, wheel size.
If you need one line: buy the 2.2 MT with 75 hp when you want the higher 7.5 compression rating and 154 Nm; buy the 2.2 MT with 60 hp when 222 mm clearance and 587 kg payload matter more than 15 hp. Same generation, same name, different numbers — use the horsepower in the name so the two 2.2 MT pages do not get mixed.