Mazda Revue

Mazda Revue: which version to buy and why

The Mazda Revue was sold in one generation as a Sedan with four named versions: 1.3 AT, 1.3 MT, 1.5 AT, and 1.5 MT. The buying question is not “which generation,” because there is only 1 generation (generation window 1990-10-01 to 1994-12-31; each version is listed 1990-09-01 to 1997-12-31). The choice is engine size, gearbox, and the chassis package that comes with 1.5 MT.

The Mazda Revue was sold in one generation as a Sedan with four named versions: 1.3 AT, 1.3 MT, 1.5 AT, and 1.5 MT. The buying question is not “which generation,” because there is only 1 generation (generation window 1990-10-01 to 1994-12-31; each version is listed 1990-09-01 to 1997-12-31). The choice is engine size, gearbox, and the chassis package that comes with 1.5 MT. That last point matters: 1.5 MT is not just a 1.5 with a stick — it is the lightest car in the set, the only one with measured 0–100 and consumption, and the only one with a different rear suspension and rear brakes.

Specs that actually separate the four versions

All four are Gasoline, 4 cylinders, Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, compression 9.4, FWD, tank 40 L, boost No. Engine position is Front, transverse on 1.3 AT, 1.3 MT, and 1.5 AT; on 1.5 MT engine position is not measured. Injection is Distributed injection (multi-point) on the first three; 1.5 MT uses Central injection (single-point or single- point). Bore × stroke is 71 × 83.6 on both 1.3 versions and 78 × 78.4 on both 1.5 versions.

Power per litre and kg per horsepower

Specific output is almost the same, so the 1.5 is not a “hot” 1.3 — it is a larger engine at the same intensity.

• 1.3 AT / 1.3 MT: 76 hp from 1.323 L → 57.4 hp/L.
• 1.5 AT / 1.5 MT: 88 hp from 1.498 L → 58.7 hp/L (+1.3 hp/L, about +2%).

The extra 175 cc buys +12 hp (+15.8%) and +17 Nm on 1.5 AT vs 1.3 AT (117 vs 100), or +18 Nm on 1.5 MT vs 1.3 MT (118 vs 100). Peak power and torque sit at the same rpm on every version (6500 / 4000).

Mass per horsepower is where the ranking is obvious:

• 1.3 AT: 880 kg / 76 hp = 11.58 kg/hp (worst).
• 1.3 MT: 840 kg / 76 hp = 11.05 kg/hp.
• 1.5 AT: 890 kg / 88 hp = 10.11 kg/hp.
• 1.5 MT: 790 kg / 88 hp = 8.98 kg/hp (best).

1.5 MT is 2.60 kg/hp lighter than 1.3 AT — a 22% better mass-to-power figure without inventing a different engine family.

Automatic vs manual on the same engine (what the extra mass buys)

There is no price in the data, so “what the extra money buys” here is what the Automatic versions add in kilograms and what they drop in gears.

On the 1.3: 1.3 AT is 880 kg, 1.3 MT is 840 kg. The Automatic costs +40 kg (+4.8%) and replaces a 5-speed Manual with a 4-speed Automatic. Power, torque, displacement, fuel 92, injection, suspension, brakes, tank 40 L, and ground clearance 150 mm are identical. 0–100, top speed, and consumption are not measured on both 1.3 versions, so you cannot prove the Automatic is slower — you can only prove it is heavier.

On the 1.5 the gap is larger and the cars are not the same underneath. 1.5 AT is 890 kg; 1.5 MT is 790 kg. The Automatic is +100 kg (+12.7%). 1.5 AT also runs fuel 92, multi-point injection, ground clearance 150 mm, Semi-independent, torsion rear, and Drum rear brakes. 1.5 MT runs fuel 95, Central injection (single-point or single- point), ground clearance 130 mm (−20 mm), Independent, spring rear, and Disc rear brakes. Torque is 117 Nm vs 118 Nm — 1 Nm, not a reason to choose.

If you want an Automatic, 1.5 AT vs 1.3 AT is the clean engine step: +12 hp, +17 Nm, +10 kg (890 vs 880). You pay 10 kg for 15.8% more power. Clearance stays 150 mm; rear remains Semi-independent, torsion; rear brakes stay Drum; fuel stays 92.

If you want a Manual, 1.5 MT vs 1.3 MT is not a clean engine step: you also get −50 kg (790 vs 840), −20 mm clearance, Independent rear, Disc rear, 95 instead of 92, and the only measured performance in the catalogue.

Performance and economy: only 1.5 MT is measured

• 1.3 AT: 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured, city / highway / mixed not measured, CO2 not measured, eco class not measured.
• 1.3 MT: 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured, city / highway / mixed not measured, CO2 not measured, eco class not measured.
• 1.5 AT: 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured, city / highway / mixed not measured, CO2 not measured, eco class not measured.
• 1.5 MT: 10.6 s to 100, 165 km/h, 9.8 / 6.1 / 8.4 L/100 km (city / highway / mixed). CO2 not measured, eco class not measured.

Do not treat 10.6 s and 165 km/h as “the Revue’s figures.” They belong to 1.5 MT only. The other three versions are not slower in the data; they are unmeasured.

On 1.5 MT, highway use 6.1 vs city 9.8 is 3.7 L/100 km less on the highway (−38% vs city). Mixed 8.4 sits 1.4 below city and 2.3 above highway. With a 40 L tank, mixed 8.4 implies about 476 km of mixed range (40 / 8.4 × 100); highway 6.1 implies about 656 km; city 9.8 implies about 408 km. Those ranges are arithmetic on the given tank and consumption, not extra lab tests.

Dimensions, weight, clearance, wheels

Wheel size is not measured on all four versions.

Gross weight is not measured on 1.3 AT, 1.3 MT, and 1.5 AT. 1.5 MT lists gross 1240 kg against kerb 790 kg — 450 kg of payload (1240 − 790). You cannot compare payload across versions because three of four have no gross figure.

Ground clearance:

• 1.3 AT, 1.3 MT, 1.5 AT: 150 mm.
• 1.5 MT: 130 mm.

If you need the extra 20 mm, you are shopping the 150 mm trio, not 1.5 MT.

Chassis (same on 1.3 AT, 1.3 MT, 1.5 AT): Independent, spring front; Semi-independent, torsion rear; Disc front; Drum rear.

1.5 MT: Independent, spring front and Independent, spring rear; Disc front and Disc rear.

Tank is 40 L on every version.

Kerb ranking, lightest first: 1.5 MT 790 → 1.3 MT 840 (+50 kg) → 1.3 AT 880 (+90 kg vs 1.5 MT) → 1.5 AT 890 (+100 kg vs 1.5 MT). The heaviest car (1.5 AT, 890 kg) is also the second-strongest engine with the Automatic — not the worst power-to-weight, but the worst Automatic power-to-weight after 1.3 AT.

Which version to choose

Choose 1.5 MT if you want the strongest mass-to-power number and the only measured performance. It is 88 hp, 118 Nm, 790 kg, 8.98 kg/hp, 10.6 s, 165 km/h, mixed 8.4 L/100 km, Independent rear, Disc rear, fuel 95. You give up 20 mm of clearance versus the others and you accept Central injection (single-point or single- point) instead of Distributed injection (multi-point). Engine position is not measured on this version.

Choose 1.3 MT if you want the lightest 1.3 and the 150 mm / torsion-rear package. 76 hp, 100 Nm, 840 kg, 11.05 kg/hp, 5-speed Manual, fuel 92, multi-point. It is 50 kg heavier than 1.5 MT and 12 hp down, with 0–100 and mpg not measured. Versus 1.3 AT it is simply 40 kg lighter with one extra gear.

Choose 1.5 AT if you need Automatic and want the extra 12 hp without changing clearance. 88 hp, 117 Nm, 890 kg, 10.11 kg/hp, 4-speed Automatic, 150 mm, same rear as the 1.3s, fuel 92. Versus 1.3 AT you add 10 kg for +12 hp. Versus 1.5 MT you add 100 kg, lose Independent rear and Disc rear, drop 1 Nm, and have 0–100 and consumption not measured.

Choose 1.3 AT only if Automatic is required and you accept the worst kg/hp in the catalogue. 76 hp, 100 Nm, 880 kg, 11.58 kg/hp. It is 10 kg lighter than 1.5 AT and 12 hp weaker. Performance and economy are not measured. There is no second generation to “wait for a facelift” — restyling is not listed as a separate generation, and the four versions share the same start/stop dates.

Do not choose on wheels, CO2, or eco class: wheels not measured, CO2 not measured, eco class not measured on every version.

Short ranking by the numbers we have: best kg/hp and only timed/economy data — 1.5 MT; best Automatic kg/hp — 1.5 AT; lightest 1.3 — 1.3 MT; last pick — 1.3 AT. If ground clearance 150 mm is a hard requirement, drop 1.5 MT and pick 1.5 AT (Automatic) or 1.3 MT (Manual).