1.8 vs. 2.0
 

I've driven my 99 w/40,000 on it vs. my moms 01
w/10,000 miles and I've noticed the fact that the 1.8 revs much faster than the 2.0. The 2.0 although has a much fatter tourque curve. The only problem I've found is that the 2.0 drops off big time just before redline, bummer. Any thoughts about the difference? Remember, stock motors.

My 2.0L revs fine if I step on the gas hard enough :D

Seriously though, I've never driven the 1.8L so I can't offer a comparison. What I can say is that the 2.0L suits me perfectly (for now). I find all the power I need all throughout the power band. It's not too often that I bust to redline, but I find it's great when I do.

I have installed a K&N air filter....I'm not so sure it's made much of a difference, but it *seems* like it revs faster now. Who knows for sure though.

heres a fairly simplified explanation...all they did to get the 2.0L is stroke the 1.8L engine...you get more hp and torque but the engine doesnt want to rev as fast because it has a longer stroke....because of its ability to rev the 1.8L has a more linear toque curve giving it more power overall thru the revs,althought the difference is not that much...does that help???:bt:

I heard it was the other way around...the 1.8L is a de-stroked 2.0L. Anybody able to verify??

Actually Pro-Fan is correct the 1.8L is a de-stroked 2.0L all you have to do to get the 1.8 back to teh 2.0 is replace the rods. I'm keeping the 1.8 as it does rev quicker and has been known to beat the 2.0 on numerous accounts here in asheville. I'm just going to build my motor to the Mazdaspeed FS-ZE specs. And no it isn't your garden variety FS-ZE there was a limited run of 150 cars in Japan with the Mazdaspeed name before this new turbo one with eve higher compression a different exhaust cam and different flywheel.

The FS-DE 2.0L motor has been around since the 1993 model year (as far as I know) on the 626, MX-6, and Probe. The FP-DE 1.8L motor only existed for the 1999-2000 model years on the Protege (U.S. models).

The 1.8L has a much more linear horsepower curve and flatter torque curve than the 2.0L. The 2.0L has more low-end torque, but drops off quickly after 5,000rpm. The 1.8L will pull hard up to redline, and revs much more freely. Based on the dyno's I have seen here (including mine), the power that actually makes it to the ground is very similar with the 1.8L putting slightly more horsepower to the ground and the 2.0L putting slightly more torque to the ground. However, the 2.0L sits in a heavier car that offsets any slight advantage that engine has. Plus, the 1.8L has slightly closer gear ratios giving it an acceleration advantage.

In terms of feel and sound, the two engines are amazingly different. The 1.8L revs quicker and easier and does so with an aggressive growl. The 2.0L, in comparison, revs slower, drops off power sooner, and is not very pleasant as the revs rise. In reviews, the 1.8L was called "songful" where the 2.0L was called "unrefined" and "coarse" and "noisy."

I wanted to upgrade to a 2.0L model last year for the more rigid structure, better sound insulation, styling improvements, and more power. However, what I found in the test drive was a slower, less fun-to-drive engine and a terrible sound system (in comparison to the '99-'00). I decided to keep the '99.

However, the FP-DE 1.8L is coarse and unrefined compared to the BP 1.8L used in previous models.

-Jerry

craig....I respect your vast automotive knowledge...BUT...you missed something....the rods may in fact be different...but that can NOT be the only thing...as until you make the pistons go farther up and down (stroke) the displacement won't change...if you only put a longer or shorter rod in it...the only thing that would change is the pistons position in the cylinder and piston velocity....but not the amount of air it displaces...you have got to increase the stroke as well to get this done.

:{D

Sorry about that I wasn't sure about the crank so I thought I would let the other guys answer that one. I'm not too up to date on the FS motor I just hang around mine all I care is that the pistons from the 2.0 and the cams will work in mine and I'm happy. :D

The 1.8L has a 7mm shorter stroke than the 2.0L (85mm Vs. 92mm), with the same bore (83mm). The 1.8L also has a lighter weight flywheel than the 2.0L (15lbs Vs. 18lbs). Assuming the same manufacturing tolerances percentage wise, the lighter weight flywheel and crank would not only make the 1.8L faster reving than the 2.0L, but smoother due to less reciprocating weight imbalance. The shorter stroke, reduced weight, and better rod ratio make the 1.8L quicker reving, as well as capable of a higher redline with the proper valve train ( FS-ZE valve springs?). It should also be more reliable than the 2.0L engine at higher revs due to lower mean piston speeds (I.E. less stress). All this adds up to an excellent choice for a turbo application, if any of the kits currently being produced for the 2001+ 2.0L Proteges will fit the earlier cars.

I e-mailed Tri-Point Engineering a couple of months ago regarding their turbo. They said it would fit the 1.8L just fine. The only hold-up is the intercooler. Only the MP3's and Protege5's front bumper have enough clearance to mount the intercooler. For all other Protege's, modifications will have to be made to mount it.

-Jerry

That would seem to be good news for the BEGI system, which I'm more interested in anyway. Considering the location of the intercooler with the BEGI system, there shouldn't be any difference between the MP3/Protege 5 front bumper cover and the other Proteges.