I know that the MKII HGT had 155hp as opposed to 147 and the 1.4 was replaced by the 1.2 but is there a difference between the 1.6 and 100 and the 1.8 and 115? Parker car reviews state that the 1.6 was 8v and the 100 was 16v but I think they are talking crap because my 1.6 SX says 16v on the side. Comparing the brochures the 1.6 and 100 and the 1.8 and 115 look the same - hp, peak torque, top speed etc, the only difference seems to be a better fuel consumption with the 100 compared to the 1.6.

Also, from moving up from a 1.6 to a 115, I notice that the 115 is a lot smoother and more refined, however I seem to have lost the power 'kick' I had in the 1.6 in 3rd gear. Any similar experiences?

Gaz

There isn't any difference between the engines. They just bought in new designations that's all. Parkers must be talking through a large hole in their arses. The 100 is 16v and as you say so was the old 1.6

engine changes

The mk 1 and 2 can be differentiated by the way they are called! all earlier models had the engine size with the number of valves, eg 1.6 16v, 1.8 16v etc. The new models quotes horsepower and the number of valves, eg 100 16v, 115 16v etc.
The difference in the engines is a different ignition system and the change from aluminium inlet manifold to plastic ones, also some models had variable inlet manifold geometry.
The new ignition systems had a continuously advancing ignition timing until the onset of detonation was reached and then it backed of a couple of degrees and started again. This gave better emmissions and smoother engine running and better fuel consumption.
Quite a few other things were changed but merely for cost reasons as opposed to power. The reason there is no poewer kick is the power curve is a lot smoother.