MX5: 1.6i or 1.8i

[GPSS]

Does anyone know if there is much difference in the driving expeirence between a 1.6 or the 1.8. Which is the better car. Any thoughts or opinions appreciated. Cheer's.

[Fruitcake]

GPSS said:

Does anyone know if there is much difference in the driving expeirence between a 1.6 or the 1.8. Which is the better car. Any thoughts or opinions appreciated. Cheer's.

There's a Eunos/MX-5 section on here - look in there for the many arguments between the two.

[GPSS]

Cheer's Fruitcake, got my anwser there.

[NiceCupOfTea]

Can't see your thread in the MX5 section.

Not driven a 1.6 - it's supposed to be a bit revvier and the 1.8 a bit torquier.

I don't think there'll be much difference in mpg to be honest. I average 25mpg from mine, but last week did a lot of motorway work and got 33!

[Negative Creep]

I have the 1.6 and think it's a great little engine. Not powerful, but very revvey, eager and sounds nice as well. Haven't driven the 1.8 but have been told buy those 'in the know' that it's extra power is negated by extra weight and lack of flexibility. Don't expect brilliant mpg though. The 1.6 is cheaper insurance and more available, at least on early cars

[Combover]

In a straight line, it's a slow car (comparatively) so the extra grunt of the 1.8 should be hard to ignore.

[pbirkett]

Well the 1.8 I drove was very slow, so if the 1.6 was lighter, revvier and nicer sounding then I'd go for that, since the 1.8 is not going to set anyone pants on fire as it is.

At least, as long as its the 115 bhp 1.6 and not the 90 bhp one.

[Combover]

Given that the 1.6 and 1.8 are from the same engine family (Mazda B-Series) I can't see how the above is true.

The difference surly can't be so obvious as to errode the extra potency of the 1.8?

Edited by Combover on Monday 21st July 22:58

[NiceCupOfTea]

AIUI the 1.8 was brought in in 94 when the 1.6 was detuned to 90bhp to be insurance friendly.

[The Ben]

hora said:

Did they say 1.6 gutless but more mpg? (I owned both)

Can't be assed to find the forum!

I have had both, 1.6 isnt guttless, and stangely the MPG isnt the noticeable between them...


Not having a pop but was just saying

[MX-5 Lazza]

The 1.8 replaced the 1.6 in 93. The low-power 1.6 was introduced in 94 and isn't just a detuned version of the 115bhp engine, there are a lot of changes which make it pretty much impossible to bring it up to 115bhp standard.
The best car to go for is a very early 1.8. The additional bracing that added the extra weight didn't come in until 94 so a 93 1.8 will have the extra power & torque (and in my opinion, a more eager engine) without the penalty of additional weight.

[OnlyMX5ives]

1.6 has more aggressive cams so is 'revvier'

1.8 is easier to live with as an everyday car and has several upgraded parts.

Try both, neiether is a bad car.

[m4tthew]

Whats the fuel economy like on say a 98 1.6 then?

The missus is very interested in one and Im just wandering.

There is an advert for one on here at the mo that claims 40mpg, is that accurate?

Also states that the engine is 115bhp, which looking at Parkers matches up. When was the 1.6 only 90bhp? 94-98?

Sorry to hi-jack the thread a bit but thought Id post in this one rather than have loads of threads covering similar stuff.

[MX-5 Lazza]

m4tthew said:

Whats the fuel economy like on say a 98 1.6 then?

The missus is very interested in one and Im just wandering.

There is an advert for one on here at the mo that claims 40mpg, is that accurate?

Also states that the engine is 115bhp, which looking at Parkers matches up. When was the 1.6 only 90bhp? 94-98?

Sorry to hi-jack the thread a bit but thought Id post in this one rather than have loads of threads covering similar stuff.

How long is a piece of string?
40mpg is possible if you drive like a granny. Some only get 25mpg or so. It depends on your driving style and the tpe of roads you drive on and distance driven. If you do lots of short journeys around town or just use the car for thrashing around the countryside then it will drink the fuel quickly. If however you spend all your time at 60mph on the motorway then the fuel will last a lot longer. The average with a 1.6 seems to be 30-33mpg.

The Mk2 was introduced in 98 so that car is probably a 1.6 Mk2.

[m4tthew]

MX-5 Lazza said:

m4tthew said:

Whats the fuel economy like on say a 98 1.6 then?

The missus is very interested in one and Im just wandering.

There is an advert for one on here at the mo that claims 40mpg, is that accurate?

Also states that the engine is 115bhp, which looking at Parkers matches up. When was the 1.6 only 90bhp? 94-98?

Sorry to hi-jack the thread a bit but thought Id post in this one rather than have loads of threads covering similar stuff.

How long is a piece of string?
40mpg is possible if you drive like a granny. Some only get 25mpg or so. It depends on your driving style and the tpe of roads you drive on and distance driven. If you do lots of short journeys around town or just use the car for thrashing around the countryside then it will drink the fuel quickly. If however you spend all your time at 60mph on the motorway then the fuel will last a lot longer.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

[quote]The average with a 1.6 seems to be 30-33mpg.

She drives everywhere with a pretty light foot, so mid 30's would seem about right then.

[MX-5 Lazza]

m4tthew said:

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

I just wanted to point out the obvious before everyone started the regular pie-throwing contest that happens every time someone mentions mpg. It's a pretty pointless discussion as none of us drive the same car on the same roads at the same time and in the same way. Between 25 and 40mpg is as near as you will get to the truth.

[m4tthew]

MX-5 Lazza said:

m4tthew said:

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

I just wanted to point out the obvious before everyone started the regular pie-throwing contest that happens every time someone mentions mpg. It's a pretty pointless discussion as none of us drive the same car on the same roads at the same time and in the same way. Between 25 and 40mpg is as near as you will get to the truth.

Fair enough, my comment did seem a bit snappy, sorry.

What should one look out for when looking to buy one then aside from the norm?

Ta.