Mazda Eunos 300: which version to choose (1.8 vs 2.0, AT vs MT)
The Mazda Eunos 300 was sold as one generation of Sedan from 1989-10-01 to 1992-04-30, with five petrol versions and no later generation to “wait for.” The buying choice is therefore only among 1.8 AT, 1.8 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT (145 hp), and 2.0 MT (150 hp).
The Mazda Eunos 300 was sold as one generation of Sedan from 1989-10-01 to 1992-04-30, with five petrol versions and no later generation to “wait for.” The buying choice is therefore only among 1.8 AT, 1.8 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT (145 hp), and 2.0 MT (150 hp). All five are Gasoline, 4 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, No boost, FWD, 60 L tank, 150 mm ground clearance, independent spring suspension front and rear, ventilated disc front brakes and Disc rear brakes. 0–100 km/h, top speed, fuel consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight and wheel size are not measured on every version, so they cannot decide the purchase.
Specs that actually differ between Eunos 300 versions
| Version | hp (kW @ rpm) | Nm @ rpm | cc | Fuel | Gearbox | Kerb weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.8 AT | 115 (85 @ 6000) | 156 @ 5000 | 1789 | 92 | Automatic 4 | 1260 kg |
| 1.8 MT | 115 (85 @ 6000) | 156 @ 5000 | 1789 | 92 | Manual 5 | 1220 kg |
| 2.0 AT | 145 (107 @ 6000) | 186 @ 4000 | 1998 | 95 | Automatic 4 | 1280 kg |
| 2.0 MT (145 hp) | 145 (107 @ 6000) | 186 @ 4000 | 1998 | 95 | Manual 5 | 1240 kg |
| 2.0 MT (150 hp) | 150 (110 @ 6500) | 184 @ 4500 | 1998 | 95 | Manual 5 | 1240 kg |
Compression is 8.8 and bore × stroke 86 × 77 on both 1.8 cars; both 2.0 engines use compression 10 and 86 × 86. Multi-point distributed injection is common to all five. Engine layout is Front, transverse on 1.8 AT, 1.8 MT, 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT (150 hp); on 2.0 MT (145 hp) layout is not measured.
1.8 vs 2.0: what the extra 209 cc buys
Displacement rises from 1789 to 1998 cc (+209 cc, about +11.7%). Peak power rises from 115 hp to 145 hp (+30 hp, +26%) on 2.0 AT and 2.0 MT (145 hp), or to 150 hp (+35 hp, +30%) on 2.0 MT (150 hp). Torque rises from 156 Nm to 186 Nm (+30 Nm, +19%) on the 145 hp 2.0 engines, or to 184 Nm (+28 Nm) on the 150 hp 2.0 MT.
Specific output:
- 1.8 AT / 1.8 MT: 115 hp / 1.789 L ≈ 64.3 hp/L
- 2.0 AT / 2.0 MT (145 hp): 145 / 1.998 ≈ 72.6 hp/L
- 2.0 MT (150 hp): 150 / 1.998 ≈ 75.1 hp/L
The 2.0 engines also peak torque earlier (4000 rpm on the 145 hp pair vs 5000 rpm on the 1.8s). That is a usable-range difference, not a 0–100 claim: acceleration is not measured.
Fuel grade steps from 92 on both 1.8 versions to 95 on all three 2.0 versions. Tank size does not change (60 L). MPG / city / highway / combined consumption is not measured, so the 2.0 cannot be called thirstier or more economical from this catalogue.
Kerb weight penalty for the larger engine is +20 kg on matching gearboxes: 1.8 AT 1260 kg vs 2.0 AT 1280 kg; 1.8 MT 1220 kg vs either 2.0 MT at 1240 kg. You get +30 hp (or +35 hp) for 20 kg.
Power-to-weight (kg per hp, lower is stronger on paper):
- 1.8 AT: 1260 / 115 ≈ 11.0 kg/hp
- 1.8 MT: 1220 / 115 ≈ 10.6 kg/hp
- 2.0 AT: 1280 / 145 ≈ 8.8 kg/hp
- 2.0 MT (145 hp): 1240 / 145 ≈ 8.6 kg/hp
- 2.0 MT (150 hp): 1240 / 150 ≈ 8.3 kg/hp
If the goal is the strongest catalogue ratio, the 2.0 manuals beat both 1.8s by a wide margin; 2.0 AT still beats 1.8 MT (8.8 vs 10.6 kg/hp) despite the automatic’s extra mass.
Automatic vs manual: 40 kg and one fewer gear
On the 1.8 line, 1.8 AT is 40 kg heavier than 1.8 MT (1260 vs 1220). On the 2.0 line, 2.0 AT is 40 kg heavier than either 2.0 MT (1280 vs 1240). Gear count is 4 on both automatics and 5 on all three manuals. Drive stays FWD.
That 40 kg is the entire AT/MT mass gap in this model. There is no measured 0–100, top speed or fuel use to convert it into seconds or litres. What the numbers do say: choosing 1.8 AT is the heaviest, least powerful pairing (11.0 kg/hp); choosing a 2.0 MT is the lightest-for-power pairing.
The two 2.0 MT cars: 145 hp vs 150 hp
They share the name 2.0 MT, 1998 cc, Gasoline, 4 Inline, No boost, Manual 5, FWD, 1240 kg, 60 L, 150 mm, compression 10, 86 × 86, fuel 95. Distinguish them by power.
2.0 MT (145 hp): 145 hp (107 kW) at 6000 rpm, 186 Nm at 4000 rpm. 2.0 MT (150 hp): 150 hp (110 kW) at 6500 rpm, 184 Nm at 4500 rpm.
The 150 hp car has +5 hp and +3 kW, but −2 Nm, and both peaks move higher (+500 rpm for power, +500 rpm for torque). Specific output is 75.1 vs 72.6 hp/L. Weight per hp is 8.3 vs 8.6 kg/hp. If you want peak torque lower in the rev range, the 145 hp 2.0 MT is the better match on paper; if you want the catalogue’s highest horsepower at the same 1240 kg, take the 150 hp 2.0 MT. Layout is listed Front, transverse only on the 150 hp car; on the 145 hp 2.0 MT it is not measured — do not assume they are identical in that field.
Generations: there is nothing later to skip to
1 generation only: 1989-10-01–1992-04-30, Sedan, 5 versions. No restyle generation and no second generation in the data. Chassis items that do not change across the five cars: 150 mm clearance, 60 L tank, independent spring suspension both ends, ventilated disc front / Disc rear, FWD. Gross weight is not measured; wheels are not measured. You cannot pick a “later, lighter, or taller” Eunos 300 from this set.
Performance, mpg, dimensions: what is not measured
0–100 km/h: not measured on 1.8 AT, 1.8 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT (145 hp), 2.0 MT (150 hp). Top speed: not measured on all five. City / highway / combined consumption: not measured on all five. CO2 and eco class: not measured. Gross weight: not measured. Wheel sizes: not measured.
Kerb weights that are measured: 1220 kg (1.8 MT), 1240 kg (both 2.0 MT), 1260 kg (1.8 AT), 1280 kg (2.0 AT). Ground clearance 150 mm and tank 60 L on all.
Which Eunos 300 version to choose
Choose 1.8 MT if you want the lightest car in the range (1220 kg), 92 fuel, 5-speed Manual, and accept 115 hp / 156 Nm and the weakest 1.8 specific output (64.3 hp/L). It is 40 kg lighter than 1.8 AT at the same power.
Choose 1.8 AT only if a 4-speed Automatic on the 1.8 engine is the requirement. You pay 40 kg versus 1.8 MT and sit at 11.0 kg/hp, the highest (least favourable) ratio here. Fuel stays 92.
Choose 2.0 AT if you want Automatic and the 2.0’s 145 hp / 186 Nm. Versus 1.8 AT that is +30 hp, +30 Nm, +20 kg, fuel 95 instead of 92, and 8.8 vs 11.0 kg/hp. Versus either 2.0 MT it is the same 1998 cc story with +40 kg and 4 gears instead of 5.
Choose 2.0 MT (145 hp) if you want 186 Nm at 4000 rpm with Manual 5 and 1240 kg. Versus 1.8 MT: +30 hp, +30 Nm, +20 kg. Versus 2.0 MT (150 hp): +2 Nm and earlier peaks, −5 hp.
Choose 2.0 MT (150 hp) if the catalogue’s maximum power at the shared 1240 kg matters most: 150 hp, 75.1 hp/L, 8.3 kg/hp. You give up 2 Nm and take peaks 500 rpm higher than the 145 hp 2.0 MT. Fuel is still 95.
There is no measured economy or acceleration figure to overturn these ratios. With one generation and five named versions, the practical split is: 1.8 + 92 fuel vs 2.0 + 95 fuel, then Manual (−40 kg, 5 gears) vs Automatic, then — only on 2.0 MT — 145 hp / 186 Nm vs 150 hp / 184 Nm.