New MX-5

[Cabsi]

300bhp/ton said:

Maybe its because I'm coming from something else, but I thought the MX-5 rode very well. Unless it wasn't a sport that I drove (dealer said it was).

Did it have leather seats? If it did, it was a Sport. The SE-L has cloth.

[Tron Kirk]

300bhp/ton said:

Maybe its because I'm coming from something else, but I thought the MX-5 rode very well. Unless it wasn't a sport that I drove (dealer said it was).

I drove it on this road:


And this road with road humps:



It managed them lovely IMO.

Are these tyre marks and the hole in the hedge in the second picture the result of you being thrown into the field on the left as you hit the speedbump?

ps - if it had leather it was a Sport

[300bhp/ton]

Yep leather seats. So was a Sport.

It rode really well, and while those pics don't show it, the country road had the usual pot holes and rough sections you get round here.

[snotrag]

I posted my views a few weeks back after my go.


I'm surprised how the thread has developed!

I thought the 2.0 Sport rode absolutely fantastically - composed, firm and controlled. That was belting round the lanes of North Yorkshire too.

I also thought the 2.0 had just enough power, and the 1.5 was too slow to even consider (And as a multiple MX-5 owner, I'm NOT a simplistic power junkie!)

I suppose its all down to frame of reference.


God knows how some of you would react to an M-Sport Z4 on Run flats, or a Mini Cooper, or an Audi A3 with S-line bits... THEY are bloody awful riding cars! The 2.0 Sport MX-5 isn't even in the same ball park of uncomfort.

[Tron Kirk]

snotrag said:

I posted my views a few weeks back after my go.


I'm surprised how the thread has developed!

I thought the 2.0 Sport rode absolutely fantastically - composed, firm and controlled. That was belting round the lanes of North Yorkshire too.

I also thought the 2.0 had just enough power, and the 1.5 was too slow to even consider (And as a multiple MX-5 owner, I'm NOT a simplistic power junkie!)

I suppose its all down to frame of reference.


God knows how some of you would react to an M-Sport Z4 on Run flats, or a Mini Cooper, or an Audi A3 with S-line bits... THEY are bloody awful riding cars! The 2.0 Sport MX-5 isn't even in the same ball park of uncomfort.

I thought we were comparing the 1.5 Sport/2.0 SE-L/2.0 Sport? You said you felt the 1.5 was too slow, how did it ride/handle compared to the 2.0 Sport, in your view? Was it too slow only in a straight line or did the "soggy" suspension and lack of an LSD hold it back on the twisty bits? Is the SE-L the answer for those that like the 2.0, but not the Bilsteins?

My view - I loved the 1.5 motor and I felt the 1.5 Sport was the better car on the tricky bits than the 2.0 Sport. Just my driving style/preference perhaps.

[ZedLeppelin]

I wonder why there isn't an electric variant to choose from. The most I've ever driven my mk3 in a day is a couple of hundred miles and I could forgive Mazda for no glovebox due to the need for extra space for batteries. See the Tesla two seater.

Okay so leaving the Mx5 moniker aside, the car they've called an MX5, looks to have been well assembled. The SE-L (2.0 without Bilsteins) would be a good compromise, as several trusted reviews have already said and it is without doubt a better car than the ageing mk3 ( my mk3 2.0 sport felt decidedly rattley and loose when I got back into it after driving the mk4 2.0 sport) but I still think that neither engine variant equates to the mk4 being a great car. It's the mk4 VW Golf of the Mx5 range. Imagine if Mazda had built an updated Mk1? Imagine if BMW had built a proper Mini?

Just my thoughts.

[300bhp/ton]

ZedLeppelin said:

I wonder why there isn't an electric variant to choose from. The most I've ever driven my mk3 in a day is a couple of hundred miles and I could forgive Mazda for no glovebox due to the need for extra space for batteries. See the Tesla two seater.

Okay so leaving the Mx5 moniker aside, the car they've called an MX5, looks to have been well assembled. The SE-L (2.0 without Bilsteins) would be a good compromise, as several trusted reviews have already said and it is without doubt a better car than the ageing mk3 ( my mk3 2.0 sport felt decidedly rattley and loose when I got back into it after driving the mk4 2.0 sport) but I still think that neither engine variant equates to the mk4 being a great car. It's the mk4 VW Golf of the Mx5 range. Imagine if Mazda had built an updated Mk1? Imagine if BMW had built a proper Mini?

Just my thoughts.

Not sure I really understand any of that tbh.

[SFO]

only the 2L Sport has the Bilstein dampers. 1.5L SE, SE-L and Sport have the same suspension

2L engine feels much livelier once run in.

[Tron Kirk]

SFO said:

only the 2L Sport has the Bilstein dampers. 1.5L SE, SE-L and Sport have the same suspension

2L engine feels much livelier once run in.

Yes, but the 1.5 lacks the strut brace and the LSD - so there's basically three different setups:

1. All 1.5s
2. All 2.0s bar the Sport
3. The 2.0 Sport

(I think)

[SFO]

Tron Kirk said:

SFO said:

only the 2L Sport has the Bilstein dampers. 1.5L SE, SE-L and Sport have the same suspension

2L engine feels much livelier once run in.

Yes, but the 1.5 lacks the strut brace and the LSD - so there's basically three different setups:

1. All 1.5s
2. All 2.0s bar the Sport
3. The 2.0 Sport

(I think)

correct. wonder whether the 2L Sport has anything else different from 2L SE-L apart from Bilsteins

[snotrag]

Car I drove, 2.0 sport on 17s had, iirc, Bridgestone tyres, whereas the 16“ wheel cars have a less sporty biased Yokohama I think. Not sure if that's a engine size, wheel size or spec based change.

[SFO]

snotrag said:

Car I drove, 2.0 sport on 17s had, iirc, Bridgestone tyres, whereas the 16“ wheel cars have a less sporty biased Yokohama I think. Not sure if that's a engine size, wheel size or spec based change.

1.5s only come with 16" wheels

[Cabsi]

So what are the views on the artists impression below? The Fiat 124 Spider will provide another option during 2016...

[SFO]

Cabsi said:

So what are the views on the artists impression below? The Fiat 124 Spider will provide another option during 2016...

will be interesting to see Alfa's take on the shared platform.

[Cabsi]

I think they've decided to call it a Fiat 124 (with the hot one called an Abarth), so they can keep the Alfa brand for the platform they are developing using some 4C tech.

[DeaconFrost]

snotrag said:

Car I drove, 2.0 sport on 17s had, iirc, Bridgestone tyres, whereas the 16“ wheel cars have a less sporty biased Yokohama I think. Not sure if that's a engine size, wheel size or spec based change.

Pretty sure the yoko's on the 1.5 sport I drove were the v105's - pretty decent sporty tyre which I'd take over most Bridgestone offerings.

[dpop]

SFO said:

correct. wonder whether the 2L Sport has anything else different from 2L SE-L apart from Bilsteins

I am under the impression that the only other differences are in terms of equipment/trim and safety nannies..

[elvismiggell]

dpop said:

SFO said:

correct. wonder whether the 2L Sport has anything else different from 2L SE-L apart from Bilsteins

I am under the impression that the only other differences are in terms of equipment/trim and safety nannies..

Heated seats and a strut brace I think?

[Rogue86]

I test drove a 1.5 Sport, absolutely loved it even having come from two modified MK1s and a modified RX7. In fact, I loved it so much I did a photoshoot on one!

Mazda MX5 ND by Graham Taylor, on Flickr

Mazda MX5 ND by Graham Taylor, on Flickr

Mazda MX5 ND by Graham Taylor, on Flickr

Mazda MX5 ND by Graham Taylor, on Flickr

[Mr-B]

2 SE-L has heated seats and strut brace, main differences are gunmetal alloys on SE-L and bright alloys on sport, piano black door mirrors on L and body coloured on sport, and the Bils on the sport.