Mazda mx5 mk1 -- 1.6 or 1.8
Discussion
1.6 is sweeter revving and some prefer it, 1.8 has more power. In terms of tuning the power available is down to your budget. If you can afford to then pay a little extra for a really good mk1, you won't want to let it go once you've got it! Seek out a version with an LSD if you are planning to tune it but every person I know that's tuned theirs has said it's faster but no more fun.
If budget allows look for a specialist like this: http://www.goodwoodsportscars.co.uk
Good luck, you'll love it!
If budget allows look for a specialist like this: http://www.goodwoodsportscars.co.uk
Good luck, you'll love it!
ILoveCorners said:
Which is more fun to drive? Which one can you get the most power from (turbo)? Any advice on buying a mk1 mx5? Question from a kid, who has never owned a RWD car in his life. 
A bit of extra poke from the 1.8 is nice but of the three i've owned the 1989 1.6 was may favourite. The fun is in the driving of them, not in the speed.
I always thought the 1.6 revved a little more freely and felt a little more rabid at the top end. The 1.8 still needed revs but felt rather different; needing less of a battering to give it's grunt and less willing to have it's neck wrung too.
These days though, forget about the engine size - condition, condition, condition is what you should be buying on!
These days though, forget about the engine size - condition, condition, condition is what you should be buying on!
Baryonyx said:
I always thought the 1.6 revved a little more freely and felt a little more rabid at the top end. The 1.8 still needed revs but felt rather different; needing less of a battering to give it's grunt and less willing to have it's neck wrung too.
These days though, forget about the engine size - condition, condition, condition is what you should be buying on!
+1These days though, forget about the engine size - condition, condition, condition is what you should be buying on!
I narrowly missed a 1990 1.6 with no PAS, no aircon and keep fit windows. Would have loved it.
you'll struggle to make any mx5 actually fast without spending a s
t ton of money so it probably doesnt make a lot of difference.
The mk1 1.8 can use bits like the head from the late mk2 sport (160bhp standard) so is probably the best base.
The early (89/90) 1.6 is the most sprightly feeling engine but there are rumoured weaknesses that aren't present on the later 116bhp 1.6 - something about woodruff keys whatever they are.
t ton of money so it probably doesnt make a lot of difference. The mk1 1.8 can use bits like the head from the late mk2 sport (160bhp standard) so is probably the best base.
The early (89/90) 1.6 is the most sprightly feeling engine but there are rumoured weaknesses that aren't present on the later 116bhp 1.6 - something about woodruff keys whatever they are.
Had 2x mk1 MX5s, both 1.6s.
Having never owned a 1.8 Im not in the best position to comment, but I can confirm that the 1.6 is a very sweet little free-revving lump.
It's not 'fast' in the conventional sense, but the sensation of speed is great due to the ultra compact, lightweight nature of the car. It's the one car I consistently found passengers would ask me to slow down in, even when travelling at (or close to!) the speed limit.
Both of mine were also super reliable. People band that term around, even if they have to spend a little bit sorting out small stuff on occassion. I could've run both literally without spending a single penny other than fluids, and a rotten brake pipe on the Jap-spec Eunos (UK one was bizarrely rust-free, despite being a 150K mile J-plate). I commuted daily in both through central London, around the north circular, and up the M1 in all weathers. Still the most dependable, cheap-to-run model Ive ever owned, as well as being the oldest. Also the car that I had the most fun in, despite having owned several objectively 'better' motors.
Can't imagine the 1.8 offers any real benefit, particularly given that the common opinion is the 1.6 is the 'sweeter' engine.
The UK one had a tasteful aftermarket exhaust (a surprising upgrade by the distinctly 'Sloanie' elderly previous owner). Unusually, this would be my first recommendation to enhance the car. Felt like driving a little old Elan or Alfa Spider with the roof down. Lived near Chiswick high street at the time, and I suspect that was just about the 'coolest' car I could have bought for the money given the admiring glances it regularly received from the painfully-trendy locals.
Having never owned a 1.8 Im not in the best position to comment, but I can confirm that the 1.6 is a very sweet little free-revving lump.
It's not 'fast' in the conventional sense, but the sensation of speed is great due to the ultra compact, lightweight nature of the car. It's the one car I consistently found passengers would ask me to slow down in, even when travelling at (or close to!) the speed limit.
Both of mine were also super reliable. People band that term around, even if they have to spend a little bit sorting out small stuff on occassion. I could've run both literally without spending a single penny other than fluids, and a rotten brake pipe on the Jap-spec Eunos (UK one was bizarrely rust-free, despite being a 150K mile J-plate). I commuted daily in both through central London, around the north circular, and up the M1 in all weathers. Still the most dependable, cheap-to-run model Ive ever owned, as well as being the oldest. Also the car that I had the most fun in, despite having owned several objectively 'better' motors.
Can't imagine the 1.8 offers any real benefit, particularly given that the common opinion is the 1.6 is the 'sweeter' engine.
The UK one had a tasteful aftermarket exhaust (a surprising upgrade by the distinctly 'Sloanie' elderly previous owner). Unusually, this would be my first recommendation to enhance the car. Felt like driving a little old Elan or Alfa Spider with the roof down. Lived near Chiswick high street at the time, and I suspect that was just about the 'coolest' car I could have bought for the money given the admiring glances it regularly received from the painfully-trendy locals.
I never found any lack of braking performance or feel from the 1.6 brakes with standard power and road tyres, even working them hard on track days.
Sticky tyres and more power will put more heat into the brakes, but the bigger brakes are an easy swap if you decide to up the power later.
Sticky tyres and more power will put more heat into the brakes, but the bigger brakes are an easy swap if you decide to up the power later.
Having had both, I'd go 1.6 - a sweeter engine that loves being thrashed and the shorter gearing helps. Brakes are fine on the 1.6 (and it has been tracked a lot). The only benefit of the 1.8 is that it's probably easier to find one with a diff, which does make the car more enjoyable.
I have a 90bhp 1.6. I found a better condition car for the money, parts and insurance are cheap, and it's economical enough for my needs. It's no rocketship but it has enough power to to be fun, it's up on stilts which gives a decent ride & means I don't have to worry about scraping on speed bumps.
For an every day car that's fun when you want it to be & painless when you just want to get there. It's fine.
However I have no ABS or power steering, and the vinyl roof is noisy on the motorway (I bought a hard top). Manual windows and door locks are a bit of a pain too.
For me the level of power isn't an issue (even 135bhp isn't all that much anyway if you are looking for something properly quick), but the UK spec late 1.6 has a very basic spec which makes it light, but a little less easy to live with. If you want toys get a eunos imo.
Also, never build a car you can buy. If you are going to want the chassis bracing, bigger brakes & bigger engine, leather seats, ABS & power steering, aim to get one that has them already (ie a high spec 1.8 eunos).
For an every day car that's fun when you want it to be & painless when you just want to get there. It's fine.
However I have no ABS or power steering, and the vinyl roof is noisy on the motorway (I bought a hard top). Manual windows and door locks are a bit of a pain too.
For me the level of power isn't an issue (even 135bhp isn't all that much anyway if you are looking for something properly quick), but the UK spec late 1.6 has a very basic spec which makes it light, but a little less easy to live with. If you want toys get a eunos imo.
Also, never build a car you can buy. If you are going to want the chassis bracing, bigger brakes & bigger engine, leather seats, ABS & power steering, aim to get one that has them already (ie a high spec 1.8 eunos).
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
See my post in the thread above. That was my little 1.6 revvy and awesome fun. I think it's down to driving style, I like that the 1.6 responds to being revved. If you prefer a slightly lazier approach but with more power then the 1.8 might be for you.
Either way I doubt you'll be disappointed
Edited to add: talking about 115 bhp 1.6
See my post in the thread above. That was my little 1.6 revvy and awesome fun. I think it's down to driving style, I like that the 1.6 responds to being revved. If you prefer a slightly lazier approach but with more power then the 1.8 might be for you.
Either way I doubt you'll be disappointed
Edited to add: talking about 115 bhp 1.6
I'm going to have to vote for the 1.8. Better brakes, better chassis, and with a couple of breathing mods they're quicker than most believe! Mine only has an aftermarket intake and exhaust. It has been incredibly reliable, but then most of them are.
Cayman 2.7 not much quicker down the Brands pit straight here http://youtu.be/_FgcHlydS5Y?t=3m55s
Toyota Supra struggling here http://youtu.be/kW2f7elvKyg?t=1m50s
If you're new to RWD I'd actually recommend one with an open diff, less likely to get you into trouble in the wet then.
Cayman 2.7 not much quicker down the Brands pit straight here http://youtu.be/_FgcHlydS5Y?t=3m55s
Toyota Supra struggling here http://youtu.be/kW2f7elvKyg?t=1m50s
If you're new to RWD I'd actually recommend one with an open diff, less likely to get you into trouble in the wet then.
simonh9 said:
Having had both, I'd go 1.6 - a sweeter engine that loves being thrashed and the shorter gearing helps. Brakes are fine on the 1.6 (and it has been tracked a lot). The only benefit of the 1.8 is that it's probably easier to find one with a diff, which does make the car more enjoyable.
I've had both too; a 1993 1.6 S-Special originally, sold for a Boxster than swapped back to a 1994 1.8 S-Special. Both MX5s were imports, both came with similar equipment so the differences between them are really down to model year and 1.6/1.8 changes.First, the 1.8 is slightly higher geared and possibly very slightly quicker. Like simonh9 I did prefer the 1.6 to wring out; neither is all that quick these days and the 1.6 definitely goaded me into driving it harder. I think it makes a slightly nicer noise as well as needing the higher revs.
Second, the 1.6 had the viscous LSD and the 1.8 a Torsen. The viscous ones are reputed to lose their effect with age and use and effectively revert to open; mine definitely still worked (it had only done about 105,000 km, just over 60k miles, so I guess it shouldn't have been worn out even though it was ~18yrs old when I sold it). The Torsen in the 1.8 is brilliantly effective at transferring torque to the wheel with more grip with minimum fuss; it suits the centre diff of an Audi quattro perfectly. I can't say it suits the MX5 really. It doesn't allow lairy 11s or tail-out slides; on a hilly hairpin it's harder to get the rear end out than the 1.6. Very clever, mind you, and effective to make the most of the power available.
Counter-intuitively, the Torsen in the 1.8 also doesn't work so well in snow and ice since it relies on both of the wheels having at least a bit of grip to work. The 1.6 viscous LSD is much simpler and acts to lock the diff up even if one wheel has absolutely zero grip; this made it a really useful snow car. Not necessarily a big factor in deciding between them, but possibly relevant for a few days a year
I've driven them all a fair bit.
If I was out to buy one today, id definitely be looking at a 93/94/95 1.8litre car, more than likely an import.
The 'best' versions were all based on these - S-spec 2, V-spec 2, RS ltd etc.
The whole 1.6 revvier thing doesn't really wash with me - there is a bigger difference between a well maintained healthy car and a clogged up beater, than between 1.6 and 1.8 in this respect. Flywheel makes a difference too - the flywheel on the 1.6 is smaller, a 1.8 with light flywheel will zing round even faster.
The 1.8 comes with enough upgrades to make it worth the look - the bigger brakes and the Torsen diff. The 1.8 also has a fair bit extra bracing and stiffening which definitely makes a difference.
They are also, in my opinion having owner both, noticeably faster.
I have had to fit all this to my 1.6 Turbo which If I'd built the car from a 1.8, I wouldn't have needed to.
Therefore unless planning a project or lots of modifying, a 93/94/95 1.8 is where to put your money.
Of course, if you are going to modify, all is game.
A Mk1 with a BP4W engine swap and diff out of a 99-01 mk2, combined with a mild tune/headwork, and an ECU, is a really really nice upgrade over standard power (150-160hp if your lucky) and does not have to cost a huge amount.
I have seriously considered replacing my turbo setup for something like this.
If you start with a 1.8 Mk1 then its even easier as you can swap cylinder head only.
If I was out to buy one today, id definitely be looking at a 93/94/95 1.8litre car, more than likely an import.
The 'best' versions were all based on these - S-spec 2, V-spec 2, RS ltd etc.
The whole 1.6 revvier thing doesn't really wash with me - there is a bigger difference between a well maintained healthy car and a clogged up beater, than between 1.6 and 1.8 in this respect. Flywheel makes a difference too - the flywheel on the 1.6 is smaller, a 1.8 with light flywheel will zing round even faster.
The 1.8 comes with enough upgrades to make it worth the look - the bigger brakes and the Torsen diff. The 1.8 also has a fair bit extra bracing and stiffening which definitely makes a difference.
They are also, in my opinion having owner both, noticeably faster.
I have had to fit all this to my 1.6 Turbo which If I'd built the car from a 1.8, I wouldn't have needed to.
Therefore unless planning a project or lots of modifying, a 93/94/95 1.8 is where to put your money.
Of course, if you are going to modify, all is game.
A Mk1 with a BP4W engine swap and diff out of a 99-01 mk2, combined with a mild tune/headwork, and an ECU, is a really really nice upgrade over standard power (150-160hp if your lucky) and does not have to cost a huge amount.
I have seriously considered replacing my turbo setup for something like this.
If you start with a 1.8 Mk1 then its even easier as you can swap cylinder head only.
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff