Mazda 818

Mazda 818: which version to buy and why

If you are choosing a Mazda 818 rather than reading a model history, the choice is narrow and the numbers decide it. The Mazda 818 was built in 1 generation from 1974 to 1978 as a Coupe. That generation lists 2 versions, both Gasoline, both Inline 4-cylinder, both No boost, both Manual, both RWD, both with 170 mm ground clearance: 1.3 MT and 1.6 MT.

If you are choosing a Mazda 818 rather than reading a model history, the choice is narrow and the numbers decide it. The Mazda 818 was built in 1 generation from 1974 to 1978 as a Coupe. That generation lists 2 versions, both Gasoline, both Inline 4-cylinder, both No boost, both Manual, both RWD, both with 170 mm ground clearance: 1.3 MT and 1.6 MT. There is no later generation to “wait for,” no restyle split, and no automatic or all-wheel-drive alternative in this dataset. The buying question is only which of those two manuals matches the job.

Specs that actually differ between 1.3 MT and 1.6 MT

Same years, same Coupe, same driveline layout. The gap is engine size, output, gearbox count, and how complete the measured sheet is.

1.6 MT adds 15 hp (25% more than 60 hp) and 19 Nm (about 18% more than 103 Nm) from 298 cc extra capacity (1299 vs 1597). Peak power arrives later: 5500 rpm on 1.6 MT versus 5000 rpm on 1.3 MT. Peak torque also moves up: 3500 rpm versus 2500 rpm. 1.3 MT is the low-rpm torque version; 1.6 MT is the larger, later-revving version.

Gearbox is the other hard split. 1.3 MT is a 4-speed Manual. 1.6 MT is a 5-speed Manual. Drive does not change: RWD on both.

Engine: power per litre, compression, and what the extra 298 cc buys

Power per litre is almost a wash. 1.3 MT makes 60 hp from 1299 cc — about 46.2 hp/L. 1.6 MT makes 75 hp from 1597 cc — about 47.0 hp/L. The extra 15 hp is almost entirely the extra displacement, not a more highly stressed engine.

Torque per litre slightly favours the smaller unit. 1.3 MT: 103 Nm / 1.299 L ≈ 79.3 Nm/L. 1.6 MT: 122 Nm / 1.597 L ≈ 76.4 Nm/L. 1.3 MT also has the higher compression ratio: 9.5 versus 9 on 1.6 MT.

Bore and stroke explain the character split. 1.3 MT is 74 × 75.5. 1.6 MT is 78 × 83. That is 4 mm more bore and 7.5 mm more stroke on 1.6 MT. Both stay 4 cylinders, Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, No boost.

Fuel system is measured only on 1.3 MT: Central injection (single-point or single- point), fuel grade 95. On 1.6 MT both fuel system and fuel grade are not measured. Do not treat that blank as “no injection” or “no octane requirement”; it is simply not in this sheet.

1.3 MT lists 44 kW; 1.6 MT lists 55 kW — 11 kW more, the same 25% step as the horsepower figures.

Performance, mpg, and the versions where figures are not measured

1.3 MT is the only version with a complete performance and economy block: 17.8 s 0–100, 150 km/h top speed, 9.4 city / 7.1 highway / 8.2 mixed. 1.6 MT is not measured for 0–100, top speed, city, highway, and mixed. You cannot honestly say the larger engine is quicker or thirstier from this catalogue; you can only say it has 15 hp and 19 Nm more, a 5-speed Manual, and no timed or consumption figures here.

If you need a known 0–100, a known top speed, and known mpg-style consumption numbers, 1.3 MT is the version that has them. If you are buying on output and gear count alone, 1.6 MT is the stronger paper spec, with those performance and economy cells marked not measured.

CO2 and eco class are not measured on both 1.3 MT and 1.6 MT. Tank capacity is not measured on both.

Dimensions, weight, and kg per horsepower

Kerb weight is measured only on 1.3 MT: 850 kg. Gross weight is not measured on either version. Ground clearance is 170 mm on both 1.3 MT and 1.6 MT. Wheel sizes are not measured on both. Front suspension is Independent, spring on both. Rear suspension is not measured on both. Front brakes are Disc on both; rear brakes are not measured on both.

Weight per horsepower can be calculated only for 1.3 MT: 850 / 60 ≈ 14.2 kg/hp. For 1.6 MT kerb weight is not measured, so kg/hp is not measured. Do not assume 1.6 MT is lighter or heavier than 850 kg.

Generations: what changed — and what did not

There is 1 generation (1974–1978, Coupe, 2 versions). Nothing in this dataset is a second generation, a facelift generation, or a body-type swap. Both 1.3 MT and 1.6 MT share the same start and stop dates (1974-01-01 to 1978-12-31). Choosing “a later Mazda 818” is not a choice this catalogue supports: you are choosing inside one generation.

What that generation holds constant: Gasoline, Inline 4, 2 valves per cylinder, No boost, Manual, RWD, 170 mm clearance, Independent, spring front, Disc front brakes, Coupe.

What it varies: displacement (1299 vs 1597), power (60 vs 75 hp), torque (103 vs 122 Nm), peak-power rpm (5000 vs 5500), peak-torque rpm (2500 vs 3500), compression (9.5 vs 9), bore × stroke (74 × 75.5 vs 78 × 83), gears (4 vs 5), and completeness of the measured sheet (acceleration, speed, consumption, kerb weight, fuel grade, and injection are filled on 1.3 MT and not measured on 1.6 MT).

Which version to choose

Choose 1.3 MT if you want the documented car. It is the lighter-output 60 hp / 103 Nm 1299 cc Gasoline Inline 4 with No boost, 4-speed Manual, RWD. It is the only version with 850 kg kerb weight, 17.8 s to 100, 150 km/h, 9.4 / 7.1 / 8.2 consumption, 95 fuel, and Central injection (single-point or single- point). Compression 9.5 and torque peak at 2500 rpm make it the version whose numbers describe a smaller engine working lower in the rev range. Power per litre is already about 46.2 hp/L, within 1 hp/L of 1.6 MT, so you are not giving up a much more efficient specific output — you are giving up 15 hp and one gear.

Choose 1.6 MT if the extra 15 hp and the fifth gear are the point. It is 75 hp / 122 Nm from 1597 cc, still Gasoline, Inline 4, 2 valves, No boost, Manual, RWD. Versus 1.3 MT that is +15 hp, +19 Nm, +298 cc, +500 rpm at peak power, +1000 rpm at peak torque, −0.5 compression (9 vs 9.5), and 5 gears instead of 4. Specific power is about 47.0 hp/L. The trade-off is the empty cells: 0–100, top speed, city/highway/mixed consumption, kerb weight, fuel grade, and fuel system are not measured. You cannot check mpg, timed acceleration, or kg/hp for 1.6 MT in this catalogue.

There is no “generation upgrade” path. Both versions sit in the same 1974–1978 Coupe generation. Extra displacement does not come with a later chassis generation here. Ground clearance does not change (170 mm). Drive does not change (RWD). Boost does not appear (No on both). Cylinder count and layout do not change (4, Inline).

Arithmetic summary for a buyer. 1.6 MT costs you unknown consumption and unknown mass in this sheet, and pays you 25% more horsepower and about 18% more torque plus a 5-speed Manual. 1.3 MT costs you 15 hp and one ratio, and pays you a full measured set: 850 kg, 17.8 s, 150 km/h, 8.2 mixed, 9.4 city, 7.1 highway. If the decision must be justified with a 0–100, a top speed, or a consumption figure, 1.3 MT is the only version that supplies them. If the decision is “largest engine and most gears in this one-generation Mazda 818,” 1.6 MT is the one.

Reliability, common problems, and prices are not in the source data and are not claimed here. Tank, CO2, eco class, wheels, rear suspension, rear brakes, and gross weight stay not measured on both 1.3 MT and 1.6 MT — they are missing measurements, not proof that those parts do not exist.