1.8 or 1.6

[worldwidewebs]

Right, before I go wasting peoples' time having test drives for cars I probably wouldn't buy I could do with a bit of a heads up...

I owned a couple of Mk1 .6s (115bhp) when they were first released and owned another for a few months earlier in the year as a track toy (should never have sold it but that's another story). I loved all the cars and although they're not particularly quick I was largely happy with them. Now I say 'largely' as I did hanker after a bit more power and fancied an s/c setup (170bhp was where I wanted to be ideally).

I've now decided to get another MX5 for the track although it must be road legal and need to decide whether to get a 1.6 and possibly bolt on an s/c, or whether to go for a Mk1 1.8. Can anyone tell me if generally the 1.8 is noticeably more powerful than the 1.6? It could be that if the 1.8 does offer a good chunk of poke more then I wouldn't need to incur the expense of a charger - I must stress that top power is not what I'm after as I've had plenty of very quick cars and just love 'playing' with the car as much as my abilities allow.

[mikey P 500]

At the weekend I took my newly acquired mx5 (an early 1.6) to play on an air field at a car limits day, my friend went in his 1.8 mk1 mx5 we both had goes in each others cars and both considered the performance difference very small and hard to measure. Although his did reach a 5mph higher speed at the end of the straight on the sprint circuit suggesting there is a marginal performance difference. But our times round, all the circuits were identical all day.
So I cant see it being remotely close to adding a supercharger to either car.

[pbirkett]

Probably not much help... but, my car is SC'd, probably 170 bhp, and is a 1.8. Today, my PAS pump failed, causing the belts to slip because they are not tight enough, so i've whipped the belt off for now. I'm now driving around in an NA 1.8 with retarded timing etc, and its not as slow as I imagined. It doesnt feel as lively, but then, its made me think a healthy, properly running 1.8 standard wouldnt be a million miles away on the road.

On a PH run recently, when my car was running well, I was being followed by a standard 1.8 and TBH, I needed a long straight before I pulled any noticable gap.

Fact is, on the road, you need a huge BHP advantage to gain much of an advantage in a straight line. On the twisties, this NA MX5 was just as quick. On the straights, I was a bit quicker. I gave the guy a pax ride after and he said it felt faster, but really, I'm not 100% convinced the extra expense / complexity / weight is really worth it.

I suspect the differences are more noticable in higher gears and at higher speeds.

However, I may just have sour grapes after the day I've had today.

[worldwidewebs]

And there was me thinking everyone would be saying get the s/c, it's a no-brainer!

I think I'm going to have to go and drive one after all, but it sounds as though the 1.8 and early 1.6 are very similar in terms of power. I suppose the up-side of the 1.8 is the better brakes and the fact that they are slightly newer.

Let's see what Santa brings!

[GravelBen]

I think (based on hearsay, only driven 1.6's) power delivery is a little different, the 1.8 having a bit more low-mid range torque whereas the 1.6 likes/needs to be revved a bit harder.

Edited by GravelBen on Wednesday 9th December 08:24

[Howard-]

mikey P 500 said:

At the weekend I took my newly acquired mx5 (an early 1.6) to play on an air field at a car limits day, my friend went in his 1.8 mk1 mx5 we both had goes in each others cars and both considered the performance difference very small and hard to measure. Although his did reach a 5mph higher speed at the end of the straight on the sprint circuit suggesting there is a marginal performance difference. But our times round, all the circuits were identical all day.
So I cant see it being remotely close to adding a supercharger to either car.

I've never been in a mk1 1.8 but pretty much every opinion I've found concurs with this.

It does surprise me how quick my 1.6 can be when you give it some beans, I can only imagine it's gonna be transformed, as people say, once I have the SC fitted


I think you'll be happy with either, tbh. It's just as easy to add a TC/SC to both

[djone101]

I'd agree with the earlier comments. I used a 1.6 for a year and a bit's sprints and hill climbs which I later replaced with a 1.8. I could only improve on my times by less than a second with the 1.8. Either way you're making the right decision.

[beakr]

Is this the same for the Mk2. I'm looking at 1.6 and 1.8's but have noticed that the MPG of the 1.8 appears to be madly low (i.e low 20's)

[Munter]

The answer is "Yes. The 1.8 or the 1.6 is good".

[MX-5 Lazza]

On the Mk2 I'd say no. 1.6 is 110bhp compared to 138bhp for the 1.8 (or 146nhp for the Mk2.5). That's a fair chunk of power to lose considering there is very little weight saving.

[WarrenG]

I test drove both, mostly 1.6's and then bought the second 1.8 I drove. (all Mk1's pre the 90hp nonsense)
I liked the extra small hp's and the brake feel of the 1.8 over the 1.6, but as my car was missing a few things compared to one of the V-specials I tested, I promptly retro-fitted the front strut brace, cockpit brace and upped the suspension package to ~similar to bilstein. (although not as harsh) All the underbody added parts were present and correct, and I also am confident I could feel the difference.

At the end of the day, buy a nice condition one, whichever size, and then add-on what you need to get it how you prefer, don't think 'must have 1.8' and buy a dog just to get it, when you could have had a mint 1.6 for example.

Next question - UK or import....

Edited by WarrenG on Friday 11th December 12:12