Chris Hooper Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Hi I am actively looking for an MX5. I know the usual stuff mk1 1.6 or 1.8 the 1.8 is more powerful but heavier. But I hear tell not all 1.6s are equal some are 88 bhp some are 114 bhp. Is there any way to tell the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark (smokey mow) Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Yes, the de-tuned 1.6 was only used in the Mk1 after the release of the 1.8L engine and for the cars fitted with auto gearboxes. Physically you can't tell the difference externally as it's the cams and pistons are different, however with the cam cover off the engine it's obvious to tell by the numbers cast into the camshafts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darve Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Go for a 1.8 then you don't have to worry about the differences Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dommo Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Dare I say it, if you're not planning on doing too much tuning a 1.6 is probably a better bet. Not only is the engine lighter, but you get lighter (smaller) brakes, lighter diff, clutch etc. I also think the 1.6 responds better than the 1.8 to a simple air filter and Westfield manifold. At least there's less difference between my 1.8 and Mooch's 1.6 now we've both done those mods. Small enough to make me go hunting more power this winter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I've gone for an early 1.6 to save weight and so I can run without a cat. Also, having driven both I prefer revvier nature of the 1.6 due to the lighter rotating mass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooch Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I've gone for an early 1.6 to save weight and so I can run without a cat. Also, having driven both I prefer revvier nature of the 1.6 due to the lighter rotating mass. I think that's a good choice. As Dommo said above, once you've fitted the manifold and a decent air filter, there's not a lot in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenD Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 i chose the 1.6 over the 1.8 by accident lol i wasnt sure which one to buy then a 1.6 came up 3 miles form my house so i got it. drove it around for a while revved really nice and wasnt slow by any means in the mx5 still to see what its like in the westy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew O Byrne White - Ireland AO Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'm finishing stripping my 1.6 at the moment. They changed to the lower powered one some time late in 1994 I think so before then and you should be safe. Don't go too early though (89-90) as you could end up with short nose crank troubles. Do a bit of googling on that if you haven't already. so as far as I can tell (and how I've gone by) the sweet spot for a 1.6 is 91-94. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark (smokey mow) Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Personally I wouldn't get too hung up on the short nose/long nose crank debate. If an engine was going to have an issue then chances are that it would have failed by now. I've had two short nose engines one of which is still fitted in my westfield and neither have exhibited any of the published signs of keyway wear. The issue only manifests itself where the crank bolt has been incrrectly torqued after dissasembly which on these early engines you don't actually need to undo in order to change the cambelt. The 1.6 engine to buy would be anything manufactured pre-July 93 which is when the 1.8 engine replaced to 1.6. It was not until 1995 when the 1.6 engine was reintroduced was it detuned. You might find a 1994 mx5 but these would be late registrations rather than manufacturered in that year. Offical performance figures for the 1.6 were 114bhp for the pre-1993 cars and 88bhp in 1995. When the mk2 was released in 1998 the power was incresed again to 108bhp. The bore and stroke was the same as on the early engines so I'm assuming the power difference between the mk1 and mk2 was purely down to the exhaust system and the fitment of a CAT on the Mk2's. Comparing the weight differences between the 1.6 and 1.8 builds, we had a weigh in day for the Essex area last year where we had 3 Mazda SDV's on the scales. lightest of the 3 was Marcus' fitted with an aeroscreen which recorded 573kg, next up was my 1.6 with a windscreen at 592kg, then finally Dave's 1.8 with an aeroscreen tipped the scales at 609kg, 36kg more than Marcus' 1.6 ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SootySport Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The 'import Eunos' cars were slightly higher outputs compared to the European versions but I think that would only apply if you are using the OE injection and ECU system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark (smokey mow) Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The 'import Eunos' cars were slightly higher outputs compared to the European versions but I think that would only apply if you are using the OE injection and ECU system.from my own reasearch this appears to be a common myth as I've found no evidence to suggest that there's any mechancial differences between a 1600 Eunos, Miata or MX5 engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darve Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 It was the seats mark the seats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 In truth, all of those weights are heavier than I had expected/was hoping for. Is that with Westfield standard seats, full size batteries, cat converters etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darve Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 mines gel battery with aero but sports turbo seats (these are heavy) and a CAT the 1.8 diff and brakes are heavier than the 1.6 573kg isn't a bad weight TBF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark (smokey mow) Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Comfy seats, 7" exhaust with cat, screen, mx5 battery, carpets and full interior in mine with a near full tank of fuel. TBH sub 600kg is good for any road going Westfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.