Mazda Efini MS-8

Efini MS-8: which version to buy

Between the two Efini MS-8 versions that exist in the data, the choice is 2.0 AT versus 2.5 AT.

Between the two Efini MS-8 versions that exist in the data, the choice is 2.0 AT versus 2.5 AT. Both belong to 1 generation (1992-03-01 to 1998-03-31), both are Sedan, both use Gasoline, Automatic, 4 gears, a V-shaped 6 with 4 valves per cylinder, No boost, multi-point injection, compression 10, 95 fuel, a 58 L tank, 155 mm ground clearance, Independent, spring suspension front and rear, Ventilated disc front brakes and Disc rear brakes. There is no second generation to wait for. What changes is displacement, power, torque, drive, kerb weight, and whether 0–100 and top speed were measured.

Specs that actually differ

Same peak-power rpm (6500). Torque peak is 700 rpm earlier on 2.5 AT (4800 vs 5500). Bore × stroke is 78 × 70 on 2.0 AT and 85 × 74 on 2.5 AT.

Which generation changed what

1 generation is the only generation: two versions, one body, one production window. Nothing in the data records a restyle as a separate generation. Buying “later” does not mean a different generation; it still means 2.0 AT or 2.5 AT in that window.

Power per litre and weight per horsepower

2.0 AT: 160 hp / 1.995 L = 80.2 hp/L. Kerb 1280 kg / 160 hp = 8.00 kg/hp.

2.5 AT: 200 hp / 2.496 L = 80.1 hp/L. Kerb 1350 kg / 200 hp = 6.75 kg/hp.

Specific output is effectively the same (0.1 hp/L apart). The 2.5 does not “tune harder”; it is 501 cc larger (2496 − 1995) and 40 hp / 29 kW / 50 Nm more. Weight rises 70 kg (1350 − 1280), or 5.5%. Power rises 25% (40/160). Torque rises 28% (50/178). So the extra displacement buys more output than extra mass: kg per horsepower falls by 1.25 kg/hp (8.00 − 6.75), about 16%.

Drive: FWD 2.0 AT vs RWD 2.5 AT

This is the binary that the numbers cannot average away. 2.0 AT is FWD. 2.5 AT is RWD. Gearbox type is the same (Automatic, 4). If the car must be front-drive, only 2.0 AT matches. If the car must be rear-drive, only 2.5 AT matches. There is no AWD version in the data.

Performance and economy

2.5 AT: 0–100 in 9 s, top speed 225. City, highway, and combined consumption: not measured. CO2: not measured. Eco class: not measured.

2.0 AT: 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured, city / highway / combined not measured, CO2 not measured, eco class not measured.

You cannot rank mpg from this catalogue: neither version has a consumption figure. You can rank the 2.5 on the two measured speed figures; you cannot claim the 2.0 is slower or thirstier because those values are not measured.

Dimensions and weight

Gross weight: not measured on both. Wheel size: not measured on both. Ground clearance 155 mm and tank 58 L on both. Engine position: not measured on both.

Kerb weight is the only mass that splits them: 1280 kg (2.0 AT) vs 1350 kg (2.5 AT). The 2.0 is the lighter car by 70 kg. Gross weight cannot be compared.

Which version to choose

Choose 2.0 AT if you want FWD, the lower kerb weight (1280 kg), the smaller 1995 cc engine, and 160 hp / 178 Nm. You accept that 0–100, top speed, and all consumption figures are not measured. Power per litre is 80.2 hp/L — not a weak specific-output outlier versus the 2.5.

Choose 2.5 AT if you want RWD, 200 hp / 228 Nm, 2496 cc, and the only measured performance pair in the line (9 s to 100, 225 top speed). You pay 70 kg kerb and 501 cc. You still get the same 58 L tank, 155 mm clearance, Automatic 4, Gasoline, No boost, and Independent, spring at both ends. Consumption remains not measured, so “economy” is not a reason to pick it or reject it here.

Do not choose by generation: there is one. Do not choose by body: both are Sedan. Do not choose by gearbox: both are Automatic 4. Do not choose by mpg: not measured on either. The live differences are drive (FWD vs RWD), 40 hp, 50 Nm, 70 kg, 501 cc, and whether 0–100 / top speed exist in the data (only 2.5 AT).

If FWD is required, the data leaves one answer: 2.0 AT. If the measured 9 s / 225 and RWD matter more than 70 kg, the data leaves one answer: 2.5 AT.