By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Meade
P.S. I'll try to get everyone's gender right this time, LOL!
Don't get me wrong, I do like the car. I just have to keep reminding myself that it's a very good and sporty economy car. That is in reality what it is. While I believe it is the best one out there, it still is what it is. At a constant 4,000 while there were many mechanical noises, I would not say that many of them were the type that good sounding mechanical symphonies are made of.
After thought, I'm not going to be spending money on any performance parts with the possible exception of a K&N filter. I gave soem thought to an exhaust, whether cat-back or muffler and perhaps properly designed headers. But, these things, if done properly, would increase hp but mostly at the higher rev range and not for nothing, but if sound is any indication, the higher rev band is not where this 2 litre engine is happiest. I find the engine great in normal town driving where it has a lot of punch for a 16 valve motor. But constant winding out? I don't think that's its strong suit.
If I were going to be winding this thing out all the time, the first thing I'd want done is some sort of aftermarket kit to make the shifter more direct. A short shift kit would do nothing in this regard. It has nothing to do with the length of the throws, which I think are fine. The changes are rather notchy (something that may improve with more miles and some Sweepco or Redline in the gearbox)and the shifter's precision lacks a great deal if we want to start doing things fun at 6,000 on any kind of regular basis. I assume the car has rod activation beause of the vibrations through the shifter at idle, but it's just not that accurate. Of course, there are probably only 2-4 front drivers that have a proper feel to the shifter if sporting gear changes is your aim.
Overall, I am happy with the car for what it is. I have just decided that I'm not going to spend money in an attempt to make it into something it is not. If that's what I decide I want, I'll be better off waiting for Mazda to come out with a higher performance model themselves.
Ron B.
Meade
Revving to 5,000 changing gers is one thing, but to keep the engine at those speeds for sustained periods is my concern. A fun spurt to 110 might be nice, but not for me in this car, but to actually drive there, probably not a good thing for these cars.
Ron B.
The 1.8L for that year is a rev happier engine than the 2.0L. The power bands were adjusted moving into the 2001 model year. The 1.8L wants you to let it loose and sounds fine well above 5,000rpm. The 2.0L is completely out of breath by 4,500rpm and makes a non too pleasant whine to prove it.
I know some may dispute me when i say this, but I would highly recommend that anyone who likes to drive at consistently high revs in a mufti-valve DOHC small block engine should really be using full synthetic oil in their cars. It will make an immediate difference in the smoothness of your engine at high revs and will also protect it much better in the present and also over the long run. There are plenty of other benefits as well as I'm sure most are aware of.
If you think these engines "weren't designed to run for any period of time" in the upper rev band, then ask yourself why the engine's designed to run at so high an rpm at highway speeds.
Meade
http://web2.iadfw.net/emann/protegefaq/
Meade
Meade
I like the auto locking doors, and have always had them since I started driving (except on my Cavalier and my Proteges). They make me feel safer, and that's what matters to me.
It might be an issue if you are in an accident, and the door is locked. No one can get in to get you. That's not a problem for my car though, because in the VW I have now, if the airbags deploy the hazard and interior lights automatically come on, and the door unlock. So being locked in wouldn't be a problem.
Meade
Meade
The engine in my Pro is much smoother than the old 4 banger in my MGB that traces its lineage to a 1920s tractor motor. But not as smooth as the MGB motor once it was balanced. It is smoother than the former Mustang SVO my brother owned for a few years (what a waste that car was for Ford!). It is as smooth as the Civic Si I owned in 1990.
The Pro, however, is no where as smooth as the 19 year old 944 that I just sold. Perhaps the difference is balance shafts (patented by Mitsubishi years ago). I have not looked to see whether the Pro engine relies upon mass produced "balanced engine parts" or counter-rotating balance shafts. I would be very sad to find this engine actually uses balance shafts because it should be much smoother if thats the case. The Pro engine is also no where as smooth as the 4cyl that was in the Lotus/Isuzu Elan I owned for 4 years.
None of this is meant to say that the Pro engine is not good at what it does. It does rev, even if some say less so compared to the 1.8 engine. But, it is not smooth in doing so. Designing an engine to rev to 5000 changing gears is much different than designing one that can comfortably rev to within 1500 RPM of redline for any extended period of time.
This is only my opinion. But if you really believe the engine is smooth running at whatever mph 5,000RPMs equals, all I can say is that there are 4 cyl engines that are like night and day at these revs.
I may still be too new to my Pro from my 944 to be properly objective. I am astonished at the lack of refinement in 19 years of development in the engine. The chasis has progressed nicely in that time, but the engine lags behind a bit, at least in this segment. But, I also have to remind myself that this is what 16k buys you nowadays. It's a great little car, but 16k does equal entry level today.
Anyone know if the 2 litre uses balance shafts?
Ron B.
Dinu
Do you also place Michelob Dark and Guinness in the same category?
Meade
Until I found the specs below, I also didn't realize the new 2.0 is mated to an entirely different gearbox, in the case of the 5-speed. Here are the specs on the two engines:
1.8 liter engine:
Type: FP-DE
Displacement: 1839cc
Cylinders: 4
Valvetrain: DOHC 16 valve
Horsepower: 122 @ 6000rpm
Torque: 120 lbs/ft @ 4000 rpm
Bore & Stroke: 83 x 85mm
Compression Ratio: 9.1:1
Induction Type: Natural
Redline: 6500rpm
Alternator output: 12V, 80A(?)
Ignition type: distributor-less coil pack
Fuel system: Multipoint EFI
Manual Transmission type: F25M-R
2.0 liter engine:
Type: FS-DE
Displacement: 1991cc
Cylinders: 4
Valvetrain: DOHC 16 valve
Horsepower: 130 @ 6000rpm
Torque: 135 lbs/ft @ 4000rpm
Bore & Stroke: 83 x 92mm
Compression Ratio: 9.1:1
Induction Type: Natural
Redline: 6500rpm
Alternator output: 12V, 80A
Ignition type: distributor-less coil pack
Fuel system: Multipoint EFI
Manual Transmission type: G15M-R
Meade
P.S. It's interesting to note that there's only a 152cc difference between the 1.8 and 2.0 engines.
Meade
I think we're spending WAY too much time checking the posts here!
Meade
Hey -- Yahoo! chat in 20 minutes! Be there or be a trapezoid!
Meade
That's why I love my 1.6. Decent power and much smoother than the 2.0 with a 7250 redline.
My 1983 944 cost me $7500 with 38,000 on it. It drove perfectly and was sold with just over 142,000 on the odo for $5500. My '02 Pro just cost me $16,600. The Porsche ran on regular fuel and got 25mpg, my Pro about 30 so far. Porsche may spend more on engine refinement, but it's not an exotic by any means. The only thing different about it maintenance wise over the Pro is the service length for timing belts. the Porsche is every 45k and the Pro 60k-90k or so, depending on whether you listen to the dealership or the owners manual (odd that they say 2 different things).
For me, the idea was, with 3 children, I needed a car that would fit 5 people in a pinch if the wife's mommymobile was unavailable. Something the 944 cannot do. My wife had a hangup on a new car. I agreed, with the provision that if in time it showed that we never used my car anyway, it would go and I would get another car of my choice down the road. This is a sucker bet that I'm sure to win. The married guys out there will understand that somethines, ok, MANY times, we engange in debates and elaborate dances, even when we KNOW we are correct.
Since I work and she does not, even if her car broke down, we couldn't use mine M-F because I still have to get to work. She'll end up renting a car. As far as weekends go, it's a hassle to change baby seats, so we have not used my Pro once in the month and a half I've owned it. And why would we? Her MPV is roomier and we can separate the kids! So, we will really never use the Pro as a family car.
I wanted to spend about 15k. For the price, the Pro was simply the best thing out there. In my opinion noting comes close. But, there's still no reason for what Iperceive as a lack of engine smoothness. I may be comparing it to a Porsche, but that Porsche was built in 1983! If the Pro engine used balance shafts, you'd understand what I mean by smooth. It's a shame, because for about $500 more a car, the Pro would enter another plane of driveability. If it rates above the competition, now, and I do believe it does or I'd be driving something else, it would be even further ahead.
But, on these cars, $500 addition per car is a lot of money for the manufacturer. It might not help Mazda to be paying royalties to Mitsubishi either, although Porsche didn't think so. Mazda did a great job with the Pro, we can always hope for more. That's why we're enthusiasts and love our cars. We want more.
Ron B.
Meade
Why don't you do what we just did last weekend? We bought a second baby seat, so now Sean can zoomzoomzoom with Mommy OR Daddy!
Meade
Meade
For your sake, I hope it's manufactured like a commercial airliner's "black box" -- and considering reliability, I hope it's made by Boeing and not VW!
Meade
a)How does it maintain charge? Is it hooked into the alternator somehow?
b)Why wouldn't it be destroyed in a crash like Meade's?
c)Where would they put it?
Those are just a few things that I could think of off the top of my head.
Other then the airbags, no battery = no locks/lights/windows.
What features did your 1992 Protege have that the 2000 ES is missing? I am just curious.
I really don't much care what the name of the manufacturer is. The simple fact is that some engines are smoother than others and since someone mentioned they drive their Pro 110mph, it was my opinion that the harshness of the engine at speeds well below that would be enough to keep me from doing that.
Engine capacity certainly has a lot to do with it, but so does the design and quality control of assembly parts. Subaru's "boxer" style engine provides better torque than a comparable vertical design, but it has a raspier tone (I like it, others do not), lower mileage and is in my opinion less smooth. I know my wife's former Legacy was an example of this. Mileage not good for a car it's size and a 2.2 litre engine. Good low end torque for a 16 valver but smooth is not a word I would remotely use.
The whole NVH thing is subjective but something that manufacturers spend a lot of money on. Imagine if ours Pros had engines that were as smooth as a sewing machine. Hondas are given that description. Sometimes it's true, many times it's not. I've only owned 3, and two I would describe like that, the CRX I would not. It revved but not smoothly.
You're always looking for increased distance between yourself and the competition. Mazda is in front right now in this price category, in my opinion. There's not much more to do with the suspension unless they want to add a more sport oriented option. My ES already has 55 aspect ratio tires and 16" rims, so there's not much to do there. The interior is the nicest in class in my opinion. So, where do they look? If it were me, a few extra ponies is always welcomed, but if the engine/tranny were smoother together, you'd distance yourself further. That's the name of the game in the entry car segment. Mazda's on top right now, to stay there, you have to move forward on your weaknesses. I believe the "revability" is an area to look at.
Oh, yeah, and for the record, a new Boxster S costs more than a Protege ES. There. Didn't want to mislead anyone else.
Ron B.
;-)
Meade
now........ 83 944 vs. 01 Protege
This is cool, maybe we can run a comparo of a 75 Capri vs. an 01 Protege. You can get then really cheap you know.
Meade
My wife's new Protege5 has that engine, and I've been a PASSENGER in it on the highway, back roads, suburban streets, etc. Other than what sounds like a slightly loose heat shield when the car's cold, I have no concerns. The car feels very smooth to me, as a passenger.
So I really don't know what all the fuss is about. Maybe I haven't had the luxury of experiencing true "Porsche engine smoothness." But since chances are that I never will, I'll never know what I'm missing.
Meade
Meade