View Single Post
Old 09-11-2010, 12:14 PM   #6 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 239
Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
I think a smaller engine working harder could use just as much fuel but maybe it could work. A simpler approach may be to look at other Mazdas of the same era and see if any of them share parts - especially the gearbox. If they do then you could relatively easily swap the engine for another Mazda unit - say from a 323 (1.3-1.6).

There was also the Mazda 626 Diesel which had a supercharged (instead of turbo) engine. I don't think they sold many though. I think you (Australia) had it as something else, Capella ?
right, If you go to small on engine mpg won't go up, at least not in city mpg, highway probably would .

Thats why i said originally to use smaller engine but one with long stroke to help with TQ . problem is finding this. while the 1600cc 323 is smaller I am pretty sure stroke is down too, I can't remember if bell housing are same between 626 and 323 , probably not, my guess .

Ok it seems Mazda made a 626 2.0l SOHC in late 80's and in early 90 a 626 1.8 and 2.0L DOHC . these later would probably do better in mpg but my guess you might need ECU which would complicate any upgrade .

The older 2.0L looks like destroked 2.2 as bore are same on both (86mm)

Last edited by EdKiefer; 09-11-2010 at 12:34 PM..
  Reply With Quote