Mazda Lantis: which version to buy
If you are choosing a Mazda Lantis rather than reading a general model page, the decision is inside one generation (1993-08-01 to 1997-12-31), one Sedan body, and eight named versions.
If you are choosing a Mazda Lantis rather than reading a general model page, the decision is inside one generation (1993-08-01 to 1997-12-31), one Sedan body, and eight named versions. All eight are FWD, Gasoline, no boost, front transverse, multi-point injection, independent spring suspension at both ends, ventilated disc brakes in front and Disc at the rear, 150 mm ground clearance, and a 55 L tank. Wheel sizes are not measured on any version. What actually changes is displacement (1839 / 1840 / 1995 cc), cylinder count (4 Inline versus 6 V-shaped), fuel grade (92 versus 95), gearbox (4-speed Automatic versus 5-speed Manual), and — where the catalogue measured it — 0–100, top speed, fuel use, and weight.
There is no second generation to “wait for.” Restyling is not listed as a separate generation. The buy question is which of the eight rows matches the numbers you need.
Specs compared: every Lantis version
Use the names exactly as in the catalogue. Two rows can share a name; they are not the same car. Distinguish them by displacement, cylinders, fuel, torque, and (when present) kerb weight.
| Version | hp | Nm | cc | Fuel | Cylinders / layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.8 AT (1840 cc, 95) | 131 | 152 | 1840 | 95 | 4 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 1.8 MT (1840 cc, 95) | 131 | 152 | 1840 | 95 | 4 Inline | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (1995 cc, 4 Inline, 180 Nm) | 170 | 180 | 1995 | 95 | 4 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (1995 cc, 4 Inline, 180 Nm) | 170 | 180 | 1995 | 95 | 4 Inline | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
| 1.8 MT (1839 cc, 92) | 131 | 152 | 1839 | 92 | 4 Inline | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
| 1.8 AT (1839 cc, 92) | 131 | 152 | 1839 | 92 | 4 Inline | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
| 2.0 MT (1995 cc, 6 V-shaped, 179 Nm) | 170 | 179 | 1995 | 95 | 6 V-shaped | No | Manual 5 | FWD |
| 2.0 AT (1995 cc, 6 V-shaped, 179 Nm) | 170 | 179 | 1995 | 95 | 6 V-shaped | No | Automatic 4 | FWD |
Peak power is 131 hp (96 kW) at 6500 rpm on every 1.8, and 170 hp (125 kW) at 7000 rpm on every 2.0. That is +39 hp, or about 30% more peak power for +155 cc versus the 1840 1.8 (1995 − 1840) and +156 cc versus the 1839 1.8.
Specific output from the same figures:
- 131 hp / 1.840 L = 71.2 hp per litre (1.8 AT 1840 / 1.8 MT 1840)
- 131 hp / 1.839 L = 71.2 hp per litre (1.8 MT 1839 / 1.8 AT 1839)
- 170 hp / 1.995 L = 85.2 hp per litre on all four 2.0 versions
The 2.0 therefore makes 14.0 hp more per litre than the 1.8 family. Compression is 9 on all 1.8 rows and 10 on all 2.0 rows. Bore × stroke is 83 × 85 on every 1.8 and 78 × 69.6 on every 2.0.
Torque:
- 1.8 group: 152 Nm at 5000 rpm
- 2.0 with 4 Inline: 180 Nm at 5500 rpm (+28 Nm versus the 1.8)
- 2.0 with 6 V-shaped: 179 Nm at 5500 rpm (+27 Nm versus the 1.8, 1 Nm less than the 4 Inline 2.0)
1.8 vs 2.0: what the extra 39 hp buys
Only two versions have a full performance set: 1.8 MT (1840 cc, 95) and 2.0 MT (1995 cc, 4 Inline, 180 Nm).
1.8 MT (1840 cc, 95): 9.8 s 0–100, 195 km/h top speed, 8.3 / 5 / 6.8 L/100 km (city / highway / mixed), kerb 1160 kg, gross 1610 kg.
2.0 MT (4 Inline, 180 Nm): 9.2 s 0–100, 210 km/h, 8.8 / 5.2 / 7 L/100 km, kerb 1200 kg, gross 1650 kg.
Arithmetic on those two measured manuals:
- 0–100: 0.6 s quicker on the 2.0 (9.8 − 9.2)
- Top speed: +15 km/h (210 − 195)
- Mixed fuel: +0.2 L/100 km (7 − 6.8)
- City: +0.5 L/100 km (8.8 − 8.3)
- Highway: +0.2 L/100 km (5.2 − 5)
- Kerb: +40 kg (1200 − 1160)
- Gross: +40 kg (1650 − 1610)
- Payload from kerb to gross: 450 kg on both (1610 − 1160 and 1650 − 1200)
Weight per horsepower, using measured kerb:
- 1.8 MT (1840, 95): 1160 / 131 = 8.85 kg/hp
- 2.0 MT (4 Inline): 1200 / 170 = 7.06 kg/hp
The 2.0 manual therefore carries 1.79 kg less per horsepower. That is the clearest “what you buy” figure in the whole table: 39 extra hp, 0.6 s, 15 km/h, and a better kg/hp ratio, paid for with 40 kg and 0.2 L/100 km mixed.
For every other version, 0–100, top speed, and fuel consumption are not measured. Do not treat a missing 0–100 on an Automatic as “this Automatic is slower than 9.8 s”; the catalogue simply did not record it.
Manual vs Automatic on the same engine
Gearboxes are only two kinds: Manual with 5 speeds, Automatic with 4.
On the 1.8 (131 hp, 152 Nm):
- 1.8 MT (1840, 95) is the only 1.8 with measured speed and fuel (9.8 s, 195 km/h, 6.8 mixed). Kerb 1160 kg.
- 1.8 AT (1840, 95): same 131 hp / 152 Nm / 1840 cc / 95; 0–100, top speed, fuel, kerb, and gross are not measured.
- 1.8 MT (1839, 92): same 131 hp / 152 Nm, 1839 cc, fuel 92; 0–100, top speed, and fuel not measured; kerb 1170 kg (+10 kg versus the 1840 1.8 MT).
- 1.8 AT (1839, 92): kerb 1180 kg (+10 kg versus its 1839 MT twin, +20 kg versus the 1840 1.8 MT). Performance not measured. Gross weight not measured on both 1839 versions.
On the 2.0 4 Inline (170 hp, 180 Nm):
- 2.0 MT is the only 2.0 with measured 9.2 s / 210 km/h / 7.0 mixed and a full 1200 / 1650 kg pair.
- 2.0 AT (4 Inline, 180 Nm): same 170 hp / 180 Nm / 1995 cc; 0–100, top speed, fuel, kerb, and gross not measured.
On the 2.0 6 V-shaped (170 hp, 179 Nm):
- 2.0 MT (6 V-shaped): kerb 1200 kg — the same kerb as the 4 Inline 2.0 MT. Performance not measured. Gross not measured.
- 2.0 AT (6 V-shaped): kerb 1240 kg. That is +40 kg versus the 6-cylinder 2.0 MT and +40 kg versus the 4-cylinder 2.0 MT. Weight per hp: 1240 / 170 = 7.29 kg/hp, versus 7.06 kg/hp on the 1200 kg 170 hp manuals. Performance not measured. Gross not measured.
Where both a Manual and an Automatic of the same engine have kerb weights, the Automatic is heavier: +10 kg on the 1839 1.8 pair (1180 vs 1170), +40 kg on the 6-cylinder 2.0 pair (1240 vs 1200). The 1840 1.8 AT and the 4 Inline 2.0 AT cannot be ranked on weight because those kerbs are not measured.
4 Inline 2.0 versus 6 V-shaped 2.0
Both 2.0 families are 1995 cc, 170 hp (125 kW) at 7000 rpm, compression 10, 78 × 69.6, fuel 95, FWD, no boost. They are not interchangeable:
- Cylinder count: 4 Inline versus 6 V-shaped
- Torque: 180 Nm versus 179 Nm (1 Nm)
- Measured 0–100 / top speed / mpg-style consumption exist only on 2.0 MT (4 Inline, 180 Nm)
- Kerb on both 2.0 MT rows is 1200 kg; only the 6-cylinder 2.0 AT is heavier at 1240 kg
If you want the only 2.0 whose speed and fuel were actually written down, that is 2.0 MT (1995 cc, 4 Inline, 180 Nm): 9.2 s, 210 km/h, 8.8 / 5.2 / 7. If you want the 6-cylinder layout, you accept not measured for 0–100, top speed, and fuel on both 2.0 MT (6 V-shaped) and 2.0 AT (6 V-shaped). Peak power is the same 170 hp; you are not buying extra horsepower, only a different cylinder layout and 1 Nm less peak torque.
Fuel 92 versus 95 on the 1.8
The two 1839 cc 1.8 versions use fuel 92. The two 1840 cc 1.8 versions use fuel 95. Power and torque are identical: 131 hp, 152 Nm. Displacement differs by 1 cc. Compression is 9 on all four.
Kerb, where measured:
- 1.8 MT (1840, 95): 1160 kg — lightest Lantis in the table
- 1.8 MT (1839, 92): 1170 kg (+10 kg)
- 1.8 AT (1839, 92): 1180 kg (+20 kg versus the lightest)
- 1.8 AT (1840, 95): kerb not measured
Only the 1840 1.8 MT has 9.8 s / 195 km/h / 8.3 / 5 / 6.8. The 92-fuel pair cannot be shown as more or less economical: those figures are not measured. Gross weight is measured only on the 1840 1.8 MT (1610 kg) and the 4 Inline 2.0 MT (1650 kg); the 1839 1.8s and both 6-cylinder 2.0s have gross not measured.
Dimensions and weight (what is actually on the sheet)
Ground clearance is 150 mm on all eight versions. Tank is 55 L on all eight. Wheel sizes are not measured on all eight.
Kerb, ranked from the numbers that exist:
1. 1.8 MT (1840, 95) — 1160 kg 2. 1.8 MT (1839, 92) — 1170 kg 3. 1.8 AT (1839, 92) — 1180 kg 4. 2.0 MT (4 Inline) and 2.0 MT (6 V-shaped) — 1200 kg each 5. 2.0 AT (6 V-shaped) — 1240 kg
Not measured for kerb: 1.8 AT (1840, 95) and 2.0 AT (4 Inline, 180 Nm).
Gross: 1610 kg on 1.8 MT (1840, 95), 1650 kg on 2.0 MT (4 Inline). All other gross figures are not measured.
CO2 and eco class are not measured on every version.
Which version to choose
If you want the only 1.8 with a complete speed and fuel line: 1.8 MT (1840 cc, 95). It is also the lightest measured car (1160 kg, 8.85 kg/hp), 9.8 s to 100, 195 km/h, 6.8 L/100 km mixed. Payload 450 kg.
If you want the only 2.0 with a complete speed and fuel line: 2.0 MT (1995 cc, 4 Inline, 180 Nm). Versus that 1.8 MT: +39 hp, +28 Nm, +14.0 hp/L, −0.6 s, +15 km/h, +40 kg, +0.2 L/100 km mixed, 7.06 kg/hp. Same 450 kg payload. This is the measured “performance” pick.
If you need Automatic: names are 1.8 AT (1840, 95), 1.8 AT (1839, 92), 2.0 AT (4 Inline, 180 Nm), 2.0 AT (6 V-shaped, 179 Nm). None of the four Automatics has 0–100, top speed, or fuel measured. The only Automatic with a kerb is 1.8 AT (1839, 92) at 1180 kg and 2.0 AT (6 V-shaped) at 1240 kg. Choosing Automatic here is a gearbox choice (4 speeds vs 5), not a documented economy or sprint choice.
If you want fuel 92: only 1.8 MT (1839 cc, 92) and 1.8 AT (1839 cc, 92). Same 131 hp / 152 Nm as the 95-fuel 1.8s. Performance not measured. Slightly heavier than the 1840 1.8 MT where kerb exists.
If you want 6 cylinders: only 2.0 MT (6 V-shaped, 179 Nm) and 2.0 AT (6 V-shaped, 179 Nm). Peak hp matches the 4 Inline 2.0 (170); torque is 1 Nm lower. Performance not measured. The MT matches the 4 Inline MT on kerb (1200 kg); the AT is the heaviest measured Lantis (1240 kg, 7.29 kg/hp).
If you want the lightest documented car: 1.8 MT (1840 cc, 95) at 1160 kg.
If you want the best documented kg/hp: 2.0 MT (4 Inline, 180 Nm) at 7.06 kg/hp (tied on kerb with the 6-cylinder 2.0 MT, same 1200 / 170).
There is no generation-to-generation change to wait for: one generation, 1993-08-01–1997-12-31, eight Sedan FWD Gasoline versions. The split is 131 hp versus 170 hp, 4 Inline versus 6 V-shaped on the 2.0, 92 versus 95 on the 1.8, and Manual 5 versus Automatic 4. Prices are not in this dataset.