Which model MX-5?

Author
Discussion

Rickyy

Original Poster:

6,618 posts

221 months

Tuesday 9th July 2013
quotequote all
Looking at getting an MX-5 next month, with a budget of £1000-£1500, providing I can fit all 6'3" of myself into one. Plenty of choice in MK1s available, but noticed early MK2s can be had for that price too.

Which is the better bet? The Mk2 seems to have better interiors and I'd imagine better/more refined engines? But the Mk1 has pop-up lights biggrin

The Mk1s seem to qualify for classic insurance as well.

Any major difference in them or is it just a case of buy the best you can for the money?

Also, 1.6 or 1.8? Won't be used as a daily, probably 5k miles.

Thicko

3,850 posts

228 months

Tuesday 9th July 2013
quotequote all
Had both Mk.1 and Mk.2. The latter had all the plus point of the earlier car, albeit without the pop up lights but was a much nicer place in which to sit. Buy the Mk.2.

Go for the 1.8. They're not powerful cars so the more you have the better.

Rickyy

Original Poster:

6,618 posts

221 months

Tuesday 9th July 2013
quotequote all
Thanks.

I know it depends on how they have been looked after, but how do they generally cope high mileage, say 120k+? I'm not expecting a trouble free car buy any means, but are the engines generally strong?

Pulse

10,922 posts

220 months

Tuesday 9th July 2013
quotequote all
Very, but you're posting in the wrong section really. Hopefully a mod will move this for you soon.

NNH

1,524 posts

134 months

Tuesday 9th July 2013
quotequote all
I'm 6'4" and I noticed the Mk1 had a bit more legroom for the likes of us, because the Mk2 bottle holder in the door bin sticks into your knee when your legs are splayed around the steering wheel smile

GravelBen

15,747 posts

232 months

Tuesday 9th July 2013
quotequote all
Engines are solid, relatively low-tech and built to take a thrashing.

Not sure where the limit is for the 1.8 but a turbo on the 1.6 can make double the original power on standard internals.

MG CHRIS

9,092 posts

169 months

Tuesday 9th July 2013
quotequote all
Im 6ft 4 had driven both mk1 has definitely got more room inside. Both rust mk2 worse than mk1 actually so you need to go over it in good detail, mk1 tend to go on the rear sills and arches. Mk2 have serious issues with the front chassis rails rusting which can be hidden by the engine under tray.

Mechanicals are good not much goes wrong and if they do parts are cheap callipers tend to be a weak point front callipers can seize and rear calliper tend to have problems with the adjuster screw which can seize if the protective cap is not over it.

But the main point is rust they rust from the inside out so look better than what they are. Not a huge differences between the engine avoid the uk spec 1.6 after 95 as it has just 90bhp early models are 115 for the 1.6 and 131 for the 1.8, 1.6 is more free revving 1.8 more torque and slight more bhp but can't really tell much between them.

cornet

1,469 posts

160 months

Tuesday 9th July 2013
quotequote all
As always with MX5s at the cheaper end buy on condition rather than engine size etc...

My MK1 1.6 isn't any noticeably slower than the MK2 1.8 I've had in the past.


MonkeyDust

77 posts

136 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
The mk1s and 2s are pretty much the same car underneath, with lots of interchangeable parts, so go with which ever you prefer.

But as stated above watch out for the chassis rails on mk2s, the undertray ideally needs to come off to have a good look. A current MOT does NOT ensure the rails are sound, as they are hidden by the undertray and not checked. Probably worth paying for a professional inspection before buying, even at £1.5k level. Rusty sills are par for the course for both, but if caught early not desperately expensive to fix.


edo

16,699 posts

267 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
Bit of haggling might get this close. Good, clean low mileage Mk1's are holding strong.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/130929975671?ssPageName=...



1996 Mazda MX5 Eunos Roadster 1.8 in Racing Green - Super Low Mileage
32k miles! Recent MOT, service, brakes & Michelin tyres

This listing is for an absolutely fabulous 1996 Mazda MX5 Eunos Roadster in British Racing Green. If you are looking for a really good example, this is the car for you.

It has done just over 32,000 miles over the years and is sold with a full year's MOT certificate with no advisory notes (and there were no advisories the previous year either). It is taxed until the end of June so is ready to drive away. It has recently had a service within the past thousand miles (oil change with Magnatec 5W30 oil, new oil filter, new air filter), new brake discs and pads all round, and a complete set of new Michelin Energy Saver tyres that have 6-7mm tread remaining. A new battery was fitted a couple of years ago.

I originally bought the vehicle ten years ago from a colleague who had previously been working on an assignment in the Tokyo office of an investment bank. He bought the car over there and had the firm ship it back for him when he returned to London, and then decided to sell it a few years later when he bought a Mercedes convertible.

The car has done very little mileage over the years because I have generally used it to drive to the train station and back every day. It has been used regularly and has never let me down. I have MOT history going back to 2002. The car was originally imported to the UK in 2000.

It has a great Nakamichi sound system featuring CD player and RDS AM/FM radio, with the speakers sufficiently loud to bring you decent sound even when driving with the roof down.

It is fitted with a Thatcham approved engine immobiliser, and the certificate is included.

In terms of condition, there is obviously some wear and tear commensurate with age but I don't think you will find better with this mileage. The hood and rear plastic screen are good for age, there are no major rips but some small tears at some points along the edge of the hood: please see pictures below. I have looked and I have not seen any rust on bodywork or door sills. I don't think there is any noticeable kerbing on the alloy wheel rims. As with any vehicle this age there are some small scuffs and dents in a few places but nothing I would consider to be significant. The interior is undamaged as far as I can tell.

I had planned to keep running the car for many years, which is the reason for renewing the brakes and putting Michelin tyres on, however we have had to conclude that having two young children means that we need two cars that we can all fit into when one is off the road.

The exact mileage history of the vehicle is as follows, evidenced through MOT paperwork:

May 201332,700
April 2012 30,030
April 2011 27,844
May 2010 26,490
April 2009 23,829
April 2008 23,367
June 2006 19,904
May 2005 19,254
May 2004 15,102
April 2003 12,286
April 2002 11,010
Feb 2001 10,213

Collection from St Albans, Hertfordshire within quick and easy access to M1 junctions 6, 8 and 9, M25 junctions 21A and 22, A1(M) junction 3. Collection can be made after payment received in cleared funds.

Viewing welcome.

I bought a hard top for this car also in British Racing Green, but never got round to fitting it. This will also be for sale.

Summary

32,000 miles with documented history
Full year's MOT
No advisory notes on the most recent MOT
No advisory notes on previous MOT
Taxed until the end of June
Recently had a service within the past thousand miles (oil change with Magnatec 5W30 oil, new oil filter, new air filter)
Recent new brake discs and pads all round
Recent complete set of new Michelin Energy Saver tyres that have 6-7mm tread remaining
Nakamichi CD player/AMFM radio sound system

edo

16,699 posts

267 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
Rickyy said:
Looking at getting an MX-5 next month, with a budget of £1000-£1500, providing I can fit all 6'3" of myself into one. Plenty of choice in MK1s available, but noticed early MK2s can be had for that price too.

Which is the better bet? The Mk2 seems to have better interiors and I'd imagine better/more refined engines? But the Mk1 has pop-up lights biggrin

The Mk1s seem to qualify for classic insurance as well.

Any major difference in them or is it just a case of buy the best you can for the money?

Also, 1.6 or 1.8? Won't be used as a daily, probably 5k miles.
Note there are two 1.6's, the original in cars up to about 1994 (someone will correct me I am sure) with about 115bhp, and then the later weedier 90bhp version which sat alongside the 128bhp 1.8.

The earlier mk 1s are lighter too

_Batty_

12,268 posts

252 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
Mk2's and 2.5's seem to be rotting out much quicker than the mk1.
Google mx5 front chassis rails, and prepare for rust!!
They all rust on the sills. I loved my mk1 and will be looking at getting another in the near future.
M

MGgeordie

939 posts

186 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
My 1989 1.6 which costs £105 on classic insurance may be for sale soon whistle


eltax91

9,913 posts

208 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
I bought a very early MK2 1.8iS from a PH'er. I believe the S denotes an LSD amongst not a lot else

Mine is a rare not too rusty example but it was a CAT C car. There's a thread in readers cars about my awful attempt at body work, but I paid £500 for the car and with 4 tyres, a wheel refurb, VIC check, MoT and tax it owes me under £900.

It's an absolute hoot and you really don't need more power, at least I don't. I'm 6'2" and struggled to fit (im all body!!). Last weekend I did the famous 'foamectomy' which took two hours and has meant I now fit in the car without slouching, you can gain around 2 inches headroom for free. I also removed the sun visor as I find it obstructs my view being tall.

In summary, they are out there for your budget. I personally prefer the MK2, simply as it does have higher output engines. I ultimately plan to demolish mine for a kit car so bodywork and a leaky roof were unimportant

I noticed someone mention sticky caliper a? What are the symptoms of this?

Rickyy

Original Poster:

6,618 posts

221 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
Thanks all. Some interesting points there, especially regarding the mk2's chassis rails.

Greg_D

6,542 posts

248 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
_Batty_ said:
Mk2's and 2.5's seem to be rotting out much quicker than the mk1.
Google mx5 front chassis rails, and prepare for rust!!
They all rust on the sills. I loved my mk1 and will be looking at getting another in the near future.
M
This, surprisingly!!!!
mk1 1.6, buy on condition and yes, the engines are generally bulletproof, and a replacement is only C.£100 if it does go bang.

Rids64

162 posts

141 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
I've had a Mk2 1.8S and currently have a Mk1 1.6 (Eunos). If the car was going to be a daily then I would probably go for the more refined Mk2 but as mine is just a weekend toy I prefer the raw feel and noise of the Mk1. I would suggest there is not much difference in real world driving beteween the two engines so don't get too hung up on that.

Greg_D

6,542 posts

248 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
Don't forget that the mk2 is essentially the same car as the mk1, there is precious little between them under the skin.

Rickyy

Original Poster:

6,618 posts

221 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
Rids64 said:
I've had a Mk2 1.8S and currently have a Mk1 1.6 (Eunos). If the car was going to be a daily then I would probably go for the more refined Mk2 but as mine is just a weekend toy I prefer the raw feel and noise of the Mk1. I would suggest there is not much difference in real world driving beteween the two engines so don't get too hung up on that.
Precisely what I want from the car. It won't be relied upon, I drive 20k a year in a van and use the OH's C1 occasionally. Not fussed on 0-60 figures, top speed. Just want something with some feedback and involvement to throw down a B-road.

Was going to get another Puma, but fancied a change and RWD.

Are engines really that cheap? That is reassuring, I could probably fit one myself if it did go wrong. Are they belt driven engines?

Garlick

40,601 posts

242 months

Wednesday 10th July 2013
quotequote all
Love my Mk1, feel the Mk2 is a step too far in terms of refinement and also looks a bit 'fat' too.

My 1.8is has done everything from motorway to B-road blast without complaint