1.6 or 1.8 on the miata?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
1.6 or 1.8 on the miata?
>>14696450
1.8
>>14696450
1.6 unless you're going forced induction, basically everyone says 1.8 because it "hur has like 10 more hp" but you won't feel it, and the motor is heavier than the 1.6, and it doesn't like to rev. Like, rev it out like the 1.6 and it'll just sound and feel uncomfortable. The 1.6 will rev and thrash and do everything you ask it to.
>>14696450
1.6, and for the ND the 1.5 is easily the better choice.
>>14696450
2.0
>>14696551
This is only true for the old NA models before 1.6 was detuned. If you are buying anything past 1993 then go for 1.8
>>14696450
1.8, its even cheaper to insure
the only reason people buy a 1.6 is cause they think its better on fuel, not to mention the amount of people who'll white knight the fuck out of it 'cause its the only one they could find
>>14696551
The B6 does rev more smoothly since there's less reciprocating mass, but there is a very noticeable difference in low end torque between the 1.6 and 1.8 I've driven them back to back many times.
>>14696551
The 1.6, especially if it's an early model, will have crank issues. As a package, the 1.8 is a better overall car, not only because of the additional power and torque, but because it's a bulletproof engine
>>14696628
Yeah the 90 and 91 will have a crank issue, where the part that holds the pulley will sheer off and a new crankshaft needs to be used. However if you buy the 92-94 1.6 you should be set, you can tell which you have by looking at the pulley. If you have 4 slots, you're fucked and have the short nose crank, if you have 8 slots you're good.
>>14696582
People buy the 1.6 because it's cheaper, I bought mine for about a quarter the price of a decent 1.8 but I also intended to flip the car not keep driving it for two years. That said I have no desire for a 1.8 swap, if I'm go that route I want an FE3.
>>14696637
Bro, both my engines are 91's and they're both big nose cranks, you can check the vin for the cutoff date when they stopped using the short nosed cranks with keyway problems.
>>14696650
They stopped using SNCs somewhere mid year of 91, i'm not doubting you.
>>14696639
ah fair, in england they are the same price, no one would do a 1.6 to 1.8 swap 'cause you can get a whole car for £400~900 but having 1.6's for like £200 would be brilliant
>>14696650
This is what I meant though. 4=bad. 8= good.
I have the 145hp 1.8 (1.9, really?). It's perfect for the NB.
>>14696450
1.6 on the NA 1.8 on the NB and 1.5 on the ND
Also, on my 91 mx5, the previous owner mentioned that he had the engine blow years ago and he had a mazda dealer change a short nose crank, or a long nose crank, not sure what was there and what's there now, will check tomorrow. its since done about 200,000km seems to be fine, motor feels healthy, so i guess that issue was fixed
what's so bad about the 1.6 for turbo-ing? does it just have slightly less peak potential?
>>14696551
my 1.8 revs incredibly fast, all stock ive seen a 1.6 before and you can't even really tell the rev speed difference, Also the 1.8 has stronger internals.
>>14697963
>1.8's are better for boost
>gonna get a lot more power/$ with a 1.8 and boost
