Lotus Excel

Lotus Excel: which 2.2 MT to buy — 162 hp or 184 hp

The Lotus Excel was sold as one generation (1982–1992) in Coupe form with two versions, both named 2.2 MT. The buying choice is not generation versus generation.

The Lotus Excel was sold as one generation (1982–1992) in Coupe form with two versions, both named 2.2 MT. The buying choice is not generation versus generation. It is the same badge, the same 2174 cc Gasoline Inline 4, the same Manual 5 and RWD, and the same 1135 kg kerb weight — with 22 hp and 7 Nm between them, plus a full set of measured speed and mpg figures on the stronger car and a block of “not measured” fields on the milder one.

Which version to choose

Choose 2.2 MT 184 hp if you want the Excel with every performance and economy number actually filled in, and you want the higher output from the same 2174 cc. This 2.2 MT makes 184 hp (135 kW) at 6500 rpm and 224 Nm at 5000 rpm, compression 10.9, fuel 95, 0–100 6.8 s, top speed 217, city 14.3, highway 6.7, mixed 8.6. Kerb weight is 1135 kg, so mass per horsepower is 1135 ÷ 184 = 6.17 kg/hp. Power per litre is 184 ÷ 2.174 ≈ 84.6 hp/L.

Choose 2.2 MT 162 hp if you want the lower-stressed twin of the same 2.2 MT name: 162 hp (119 kW) at 6500 rpm, 217 Nm at 5000 rpm, compression 9.5, fuel not measured. 0–100, top speed, and all three consumption figures are not measured. Same 1135 kg kerb weight gives 1135 ÷ 162 = 7.01 kg/hp. Power per litre is 162 ÷ 2.174 ≈ 74.5 hp/L.

There is no third Excel, no restyle listed as its own generation, and no Automatic or AWD in this data. Both cars are Coupe, RWD, Manual 5, Carburetor, boost No.

Excel specs compared: 2.2 MT 162 hp vs 2.2 MT 184 hp

Both versions: Gasoline, 4 valves per cylinder, Carburetor, tank 67, ground clearance 125, front brakes Ventilated disc, rear brakes Disc, front and rear suspension Independent, spring. Engine position not measured. Gross weight not measured. Wheel sizes not measured. CO2 not measured. Eco class not measured.

What the extra output buys (arithmetic on the given numbers)

Same displacement, same peak rpm for power (6500) and torque (5000), same kerb weight. The 184 hp 2.2 MT is not a larger engine and not a lighter car in this catalogue.

• Power: 184 − 162 = 22 hp more (22 ÷ 162 ≈ 13.6%).
• Electrical power: 135 − 119 = 16 kW more.
• Torque: 224 − 217 = 7 Nm more (7 ÷ 217 ≈ 3.2%).
• Compression: 10.9 − 9.5 = 1.4 points higher on the 184 hp car.
• Power density: 84.6 − 74.5 ≈ 10.1 hp/L more on the 184 hp 2.2 MT.
• Weight per hp: 7.01 − 6.17 = 0.84 kg/hp less on the 184 hp car (better).
• Bore × stroke labels differ only in the bore rounding: 95.3 × 76.2 (162 hp) vs 95.29 × 76.2 (184 hp). Stroke is the same 76.2.

The extra output is almost all power, not torque. Peak rpm does not move. The catalogue does not list a price, so “extra money” cannot be a currency figure; the extra you get in numbers is 22 hp, 16 kW, 7 Nm, 1.4 compression, measured 0–100 6.8, measured top speed 217, and measured mpg-style consumption 14.3 / 6.7 / 8.6.

Generations: one generation, two 2.2 MT cars

1 generation (1982–1992) is the whole Excel run in this data: Coupe, 2 versions, both 2.2 MT, both dated 1982-01-01 to 1992-12-31. Nothing in the data splits a mid-cycle restyle into a new generation. There is no second generation to buy, and no year-by-year body change listed.

If you are comparing “early Excel vs late Excel” as generations, this catalogue does not support that split. Both 2.2 MT rows share the same start and stop dates. The comparison that the numbers do support is output and completeness of measurement, not a later chassis.

Engine: same 2174 cc, two compression ratios

Both 2.2 MT versions use a 2174 cc Gasoline engine, 4 cylinders, Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, boost No, feed Carburetor. Do not read a different cylinder count or a different layout into either car: both are 4 / Inline.

The 162 hp 2.2 MT compression is 9.5. The 184 hp 2.2 MT compression is 10.9. That 1.4 step sits next to 22 hp and 7 Nm and is the clearest engine-side difference in the table. Fuel for the 184 hp car is 95; fuel for the 162 hp car is not measured. If you need a stated octane in the spec sheet, only 2.2 MT 184 hp has it.

Engine location is not measured on both. That is not “mid-engined” or “front-engined” in this article; it is simply not in the data.

Performance and economy (mpg / consumption)

2.2 MT 184 hp: 0–100 6.8, top speed 217, city 14.3, highway 6.7, mixed 8.6. These figures exist only for this version.

2.2 MT 162 hp: 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured, city not measured, highway not measured, mixed not measured. Absence here is not a claim that the milder car is slower or thirstier; it is that this catalogue did not measure those fields.

You cannot subtract 0–100 times or mpg between the two versions. You can only say the 184 hp 2.2 MT is the Excel whose acceleration, top speed, and consumption are on the page.

Tank size is 67 on both, so range cannot be calculated for the 162 hp car (consumption not measured). For the 184 hp car, mixed 8.6 with tank 67 is the pair of numbers that belong together; this article does not invent a range in kilometres from that pair beyond stating both figures.

CO2 is not measured on both. Eco class is not measured on both.

Dimensions and weight

Kerb weight is 1135 on both 2.2 MT versions. Gross weight is not measured on both. Ground clearance is 125 on both. Wheel sizes are not measured on both.

There is no weight saving to buy with the stronger engine: 1135 = 1135. The 184 hp car’s advantage in kg per hp is entirely from 184 versus 162, not from a lighter kerb figure.

Clearance 125 does not change between versions. If you are choosing for ride height, the data does not pick a winner.

Reliability and problems — what this catalogue does not measure

This dataset has no failure rates, no common faults, no service intervals, and no owner-survey scores. Reliability and problems are not measured. A buying pick cannot be “the more reliable Excel” from these rows.

What you can still use: both cars share Carburetor, Manual 5, RWD, Independent spring front and rear, Ventilated disc front, Disc rear. Shared hardware in the table is not a reliability score; it only means a parts-type difference is not listed between the two 2.2 MT names except output, compression, fuel label, bore rounding, and which performance fields are filled.

Short buy list

1. Want measured 0–100, top speed, and consumption: 2.2 MT 184 hp (6.8 / 217 / 14.3–6.7–8.6). The other 2.2 MT leaves those not measured. 2. Want the higher hp and Nm from the same 2174 cc and same 1135 kg: 2.2 MT 184 hp (22 hp and 7 Nm more, 6.17 kg/hp vs 7.01 kg/hp). 3. Want the lower compression figure in the same nameplate: 2.2 MT 162 hp (compression 9.5 vs 10.9). 4. Need a stated fuel grade: only 2.2 MT 184 hp lists fuel 95; 2.2 MT 162 hp fuel is not measured. 5. Choosing a generation: there is only 1 generation (1982–1992), Coupe, two versions. Generation is not a lever.

Exact version names to keep as anchors: 2.2 MT (162 hp) and 2.2 MT (184 hp). Do not rename them.