Mk 3.5 Sport Tech - Owners Reviews Please!
Discussion
YRRunner said:
Other than cruise control, what else is different in the "Tech" than in the normal Sport?
The Mk3 top-end spec was called "Sport". The mk3.5 top-end spec was called "Sport Tech".So the main differences (between Sport/Sport Tech) are:
* Some suspension changes
* Cup-holders that you don't bang your knees on when driving in a spirited manner.
* A nicer (more smiley) front end.
* Different rear lights.
* Higher red-line.
* Height-adjustable seats[1] as standard.
* BOSE as standard[1][2]
* Bluetooth
* A glove box that doesn't fly open and bash the passenger's knee
* A choice of even more shades of Gray/silver and white
[1] available on some of the Mk3 Sports.
[2] except the specials that came with SatNav units
Edited by sbird on Sunday 29th June 22:58
Due to eldest son needing to use our car we had to replace our ageing and rusting MGB GT with something that could be used as a reliable and safe daily runner. We opted for a 2 year old low mileage 2.0 Sport Tech RC and haven't looked back. Most importantly it really is a great car to drive, more than enough power and fantastic grip.
We're getting about 34 mpg on a combined cycle, its comfortable on long journeys, I think the Bose system and hands free work well even with the roof down though compared with the Ford audio system on our other car its not very easy to set up.
My fear was that the boot would be too small but its fine and surprising how much you can fit in with a bit of thought. No reliability issues with the car at all and servicing is cheap with a main dealer at £200.
We're getting about 34 mpg on a combined cycle, its comfortable on long journeys, I think the Bose system and hands free work well even with the roof down though compared with the Ford audio system on our other car its not very easy to set up.
My fear was that the boot would be too small but its fine and surprising how much you can fit in with a bit of thought. No reliability issues with the car at all and servicing is cheap with a main dealer at £200.
Bought mine new in 2010 after selling my 997.2 C2S and still have it. Brilliant car and incredible value for money imo. Sure, it's not that fast but has enough to keep me entertained and the handling is great - really direct steering with lots of feel. Bose is ok, no rattles at all on mine after 4 years unlike my 911. Yes, it's a bit loud when on the motorway but if you're not doing lots of motorway driving then it shouldn't be a problem. I have the soft top version which you can't buy now in 2.0 sport tech form (hard top folding roof only) so will probably keep this one for longer.
I wonder how much weight the hard top adds compared to the soft top, also increases c of g? I have the soft top too, it is really fast to put down.
I really like my 3.5 2.0 msport tech. Being the automatic ( due to biking injury ) they have managed to give me a rev limit of only 6700 and also the gearing is longer. 6th goes to about 195mph rather than about 155
. So it's realy an overdrive. The automatic gearbox is pretty good though with the 4 paddles. Yes 4, because that's twice as good as 2.
Handling is great, the fuel consumption poor (28mpg) and it had to have new front discs and pads after 18 000 miles. Hmmm...
It's so easy to pootle about in, but also small enough to really enjoy on a B road at higher velocities. The steering is good, there is a bit of body roll but the car is pretty benign. The engine is a bit gutless but ok if you rev it out. Actually it is nice to be able to keep it up in the top end of the rev band for quite a lot of the time without being too antisocial.
The traction control is quite 1st gen, or perhaps rather 1 dimensional. You can catch it out occassionally. Actually I quite like that, it still helps a bit but after allowing you to know you are at a certain part of the dynamic envelope.
With no TC, as I mentioned in past post, I still am a bit hit and miss with the oversteer, sometimes lots, sometimes nothing, sometimes just right. 25 years of FWD hooning takes a lot of buffing out...... will get there eventually. The car has put up with all my bumbling eforts with a kind eye and a guiding hand.
The MX5 tends to get rather a bad press from the general public, the 3 and 3.5 tend to get rather bad press from earlier MX5 drivers I always feel. However I think it is a very under rated car. Reliable, easy to drive and most of all it makes trips enjoyable.
I really like my 3.5 2.0 msport tech. Being the automatic ( due to biking injury ) they have managed to give me a rev limit of only 6700 and also the gearing is longer. 6th goes to about 195mph rather than about 155
. So it's realy an overdrive. The automatic gearbox is pretty good though with the 4 paddles. Yes 4, because that's twice as good as 2. Handling is great, the fuel consumption poor (28mpg) and it had to have new front discs and pads after 18 000 miles. Hmmm...
It's so easy to pootle about in, but also small enough to really enjoy on a B road at higher velocities. The steering is good, there is a bit of body roll but the car is pretty benign. The engine is a bit gutless but ok if you rev it out. Actually it is nice to be able to keep it up in the top end of the rev band for quite a lot of the time without being too antisocial.
The traction control is quite 1st gen, or perhaps rather 1 dimensional. You can catch it out occassionally. Actually I quite like that, it still helps a bit but after allowing you to know you are at a certain part of the dynamic envelope.
With no TC, as I mentioned in past post, I still am a bit hit and miss with the oversteer, sometimes lots, sometimes nothing, sometimes just right. 25 years of FWD hooning takes a lot of buffing out...... will get there eventually. The car has put up with all my bumbling eforts with a kind eye and a guiding hand.
The MX5 tends to get rather a bad press from the general public, the 3 and 3.5 tend to get rather bad press from earlier MX5 drivers I always feel. However I think it is a very under rated car. Reliable, easy to drive and most of all it makes trips enjoyable.
Gandahar said:
With no TC, as I mentioned in past post, I still am a bit hit and miss with the oversteer, sometimes lots, sometimes nothing, sometimes just right. 25 years of FWD hooning takes a lot of buffing out...... will get there eventually.
After a few more months of driving it I think the lack of LSD in the automatic version doesn't help the progression of the car into oversteer predictably hence why I was taking a while to get the car to respond quite like I was trying to tell it to do.To elaborate the MX5 is not that powerful and so either reduced grip from the road surface ( rain, mud, dust, dog poo) tend to help oversteer events; with the non LSD automatic though the car is spinning away the power to start off with. It's not that obvious though so I was not spotting it though as I am used to FWD where the steering shows it and the noise.
Eventually of course there will be enough power or conversely lack of traction the other tyre lets go and the oversteer results. So I was hitting the gas enough to spin a wheel but no more or gas enough to get both going, but finding it hard to judge it. That's not even taking into account the turning momentum of the car! All roundabouts (sorry Tesco's Riverhead) have different radii and grip etc etc.
Having said all that the spinning away of the power does act as a bit of a Luddites traction control so it means you are going slower before things start to waggle.
I've always felt a bit aggrieved that the MX5 automatic has no LSD and higher 5th and 6th gearing and only goes to 6700 rpm compared to the manual, but I was travelling back from Waitrose Edenbridge to Sevenoaks on the B road via Four Elms last weekend stocked up with sippin whisky and just did 10 miles or so in 2nd. 3rd and 4th, revving it out and slip sliding out of the tighter 90 degree corners and kept a really good pace up. A pace where you are "concentrating hard" but without wanting to take out the bicycle folk or scare yourself whitless (80mph tops) and I really enjoyed myself. Because the limits are fairly low you can feel you are driving the car and it will not bite back as long as you are prepared to adjust / correct the trajectory with the wheel when needed. I could have gone faster in a Ferrari 458 no doubt, but I felt I had at least added a bit of the speed in the MX5 myself rather than the car doing it.
It's a car you have to work but then it gives back. Even the automatic. It is slightly too slow though. No wonder the BBR etc upgrades for the 3.5 are popular from 175 to 300bhp.
My mate is coming over from San Diego next but one weekend. Will be interesting fitting him at 6 foot 7 into it....
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 27th January 19:42
Rum Runner said:
roddo said:
The 3.5's or sport tec has a better flowing head and stronger crack hence the higher rev limit
Always wanted one with a stronger crack.....
better at higher revs.I quite often think about upgrading the crack on my mk3 but it would probably need a rod up grade to deal with crack given the mileage, and I suppose its a good time to get some headwork done also, so I might start with that first and see how it goes then work my way down. However given the previous irregular service intervals I am expecting to have few problems the minute I take the rockers covers off.
Edited by Rum Runner on Thursday 29th January 10:32
I don't get to drive mine much as the girlfriend uses it, but last time out the clutch felt really light compared to what I remember of my Mk3. Also, when cold, the gears seem quite notchy. Is it me, or do they all do that? Although it's only done 14k miles on a 59 plate, it feels like the clutch is about to let go. Clutch bite seems quite low down on the pedal travel. As I say, could be me as I rarely get to drive it. Super little car though and a good advancement from the Mk3.
YRRunner said:
I don't get to drive mine much as the girlfriend uses it, but last time out the clutch felt really light compared to what I remember of my Mk3. Also, when cold, the gears seem quite notchy. Is it me, or do they all do that? Although it's only done 14k miles on a 59 plate, it feels like the clutch is about to let go. Clutch bite seems quite low down on the pedal travel. As I say, could be me as I rarely get to drive it. Super little car though and a good advancement from the Mk3.
In terms of the notchy gearbox it's not just you, it's quite widely reported online. Mine is a 59 plate and on 18k and isn't good now the mornings are colder (it's my daily).BenNC2 said:
YRRunner said:
I don't get to drive mine much as the girlfriend uses it, but last time out the clutch felt really light compared to what I remember of my Mk3. Also, when cold, the gears seem quite notchy. Is it me, or do they all do that? Although it's only done 14k miles on a 59 plate, it feels like the clutch is about to let go. Clutch bite seems quite low down on the pedal travel. As I say, could be me as I rarely get to drive it. Super little car though and a good advancement from the Mk3.
In terms of the notchy gearbox it's not just you, it's quite widely reported online. Mine is a 59 plate and on 18k and isn't good now the mornings are colder (it's my daily).Mine's a daily also, on 32k now, and i've just got use to it tbh. Tried changing the oil, made zero difference.
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff