RE: All-new Mazda MX-5 teased
Discussion
Gandahar said:
Mazda has missed out here.
They need to do a 3 pot 1.8 litre engine which not only would save weight but add some character.
That folding hard top just adds weight too, just make people buy the soft top apart from a cooking version for the non sporty people.
Worlds best selling sports car yeah? Pretty sure they know what they're doing.They need to do a 3 pot 1.8 litre engine which not only would save weight but add some character.
That folding hard top just adds weight too, just make people buy the soft top apart from a cooking version for the non sporty people.
Really pleased they are keeping it simple - Revvy N/A enginer, manual gearbox, RWD. Mazda would have been crazy to mess with such a successful formula. Weight reduction is excellent news. I'm guessing fuel econimy will increase and CO2 will decrease as well. All adds up to a great little sportscar. As long as it looks good then I can see myself swapping my current MX-5 for a mk4 in around 3 years.
HorneyMX5 said:
Worlds best selling sports car yeah? Pretty sure they know what they're doing.
And they are adding EPAS to it seems, are you sure they know ?It's a sports car, when did adding weight, adding EPAS, adding a higher C of G ever help? Does a 3 pot or 6 pot sound better than a 4 pot?
Do you work for them in the marketing department? Just asking....
One thing I learnt during Mx5 ownership was the amount of utter snobbery the straight line heroes like to dish out about bhp and cylinders, and it's apparent again in this thread.
If it had more cylinders and bhp the price would go up, the balance of the car would change and the fuel economy would be worse.
The MX5 is a cheap, basic roadster that feels as fast as a car should. The 4 cylinder engines are strong, Rev happy and cheap to repair.
The weight arguments fall down because modern consumers demand folding metal lids and air conditioning. The whole lightweight demand thing applies to 0.01% of buyers. If you want the bear driving thrills, then buy an uncompromised Caterham /Lotus.
If it had more cylinders and bhp the price would go up, the balance of the car would change and the fuel economy would be worse.
The MX5 is a cheap, basic roadster that feels as fast as a car should. The 4 cylinder engines are strong, Rev happy and cheap to repair.
The weight arguments fall down because modern consumers demand folding metal lids and air conditioning. The whole lightweight demand thing applies to 0.01% of buyers. If you want the bear driving thrills, then buy an uncompromised Caterham /Lotus.
If Alfa are going to pick this platform up to make a cheaper "spider" to sit under the 4C, they're going to have to be careful. If the soft-top version of this is really going to weigh under a tonne wet with fuel as they seem to be claiming, it's probably going to be within 50kg of the weight of the 4C.
I reckon this could be great. Modern Mazdas are generally well styled (the new 6 is excellent) so we may be in for a treat.
Just please please don't make it too expensive.
I suspect there will be two power levels (as there always has been); basic 125hp and a 175hp. With such little weight the 175hp will be nice and punchy.
My Mk3 with 150(ish)hp is just a touch slower than I'd like, especially when compared to how mentally quick hot hatches are. 100kg less and 25hp gained would give it an edge.
Just please please don't make it too expensive.
I suspect there will be two power levels (as there always has been); basic 125hp and a 175hp. With such little weight the 175hp will be nice and punchy.
My Mk3 with 150(ish)hp is just a touch slower than I'd like, especially when compared to how mentally quick hot hatches are. 100kg less and 25hp gained would give it an edge.
underphil said:
The 2.5 Skyactiv from the American market Mazdsa6 could also be used. hardly bigger or heavier than the 2.0
I'd imagine it's too expensive to produce - it'd push the price up too much (or their profit down). It would also probably hurt the CO2 figures and hence the tax banding. I'd be very surprised if they've designed the engine bay to take a V-layout engine, which is a shame because if they could keep the price under 30k, a one tonne V6 MX5 would make a very compelling proposition.
BeirutTaxi said:
One thing I learnt during Mx5 ownership was the amount of utter snobbery the straight line heroes like to dish out about bhp and cylinders, and it's apparent again in this thread.
If it had more cylinders and bhp the price would go up, the balance of the car would change and the fuel economy would be worse.
The MX5 is a cheap, basic roadster that feels as fast as a car should. The 4 cylinder engines are strong, Rev happy and cheap to repair.
I must be one of those straight line heros. I just can't get excited by any of the previous MX-5's. It all falls down for me at the engine. They are horrible, flat, poor performance, poor economy considering the performance on offer, un-refined. Not befitting of a "sports car". If it had more cylinders and bhp the price would go up, the balance of the car would change and the fuel economy would be worse.
The MX5 is a cheap, basic roadster that feels as fast as a car should. The 4 cylinder engines are strong, Rev happy and cheap to repair.
For me a sports car is all about the engine first and foremost, that's the most important bit. I don't understand why Mazda haven't put a decent unit in them after all these years.
Honda, Toyota, and Mitsubishi all had 100bhp per litre N/A engines of various capacities back in the late 90's, early 00's. The MX-5 is screaming out for proper engine like that.
For me the Skyactiv engine isn't the answer either. I don't know much about them but 175bhp from a 2.0 with aspirations of being a sports car is poor. I realise they may be hamstrung by emissions laws these days but the fact is, i'm still not impressed.
I'm amazed at the weight reduction - I've been reading for years that XYZ folding hardtop adds X amount of kilo's to a cars total weight but, if the quoted figures are to be believed, this electric folding tin-top will only weigh 1050 kilo's wet!
I'll take the 1000kg, manually operated fabric roof version with the smallest wheels please.
I'll take the 1000kg, manually operated fabric roof version with the smallest wheels please.
Quite happy with my nc. Its an entertaining daily drive that is cheap and cheerful. For the money I couldn't find any other equivalent cars in the same condition or with the equipment levels of the sport. It has a few choice mods now which again are extremely reasonably priced. On paper other cars annihilate it, but it feels faster than it is and is great fun (esp weather like today)
Looking forward to seeing/hearing what the next Mx-5 is like as it's another car that could tempt me from FWD.
Also sorry I know pedantry is a past time on here but I think the current 'NC' Mx-5 is strut front/multi-link rear like the GT86/BRZ. For years that up to the current Mx-5 generation it was the same wishbone chassis but then they changed it for the new chassis. It's part of the reason, along with weight, why racers/tuners seem to say the current Mx-5 hasn't got quite as much potential because the camber control/gain isn't as good.
Again I'm sorry.
Also sorry I know pedantry is a past time on here but I think the current 'NC' Mx-5 is strut front/multi-link rear like the GT86/BRZ. For years that up to the current Mx-5 generation it was the same wishbone chassis but then they changed it for the new chassis. It's part of the reason, along with weight, why racers/tuners seem to say the current Mx-5 hasn't got quite as much potential because the camber control/gain isn't as good.
Again I'm sorry.
kambites said:
underphil said:
The 2.5 Skyactiv from the American market Mazdsa6 could also be used. hardly bigger or heavier than the 2.0
I'd imagine it's too expensive to produce - it'd push the price up too much (or their profit down). It would also probably hurt the CO2 figures and hence the tax banding. I'd be very surprised if they've designed the engine bay to take a V-layout engine, which is a shame because if they could keep the price under 30k, a one tonne V6 MX5 would make a very compelling proposition.
underphil said:
The 2.5 is still a 4 cylinder - apart from the longer stoke not all that much different to the 2.0 - US market seem to love using large capacity 4s !
Ah, that I didn't know! I thought the 2.5 in the 6 was a V6. Does the current Mazda four-pot still share a block with Ford units? 
I've driven a few large capacity fours in the US (although obviously not this one) and they've been universally woeful. Often less powerful than the lower capacity units we get here. This one doesn't seem to be much of an exception, it's only 170bhp in the highest currently available state of tune if wikipedia is to be believed.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 17th April 08:12
Taking the 3 as a benchmark, which is sub 1200kg on it's own, the 120hp petrol we get over here would make sense as an entry-level engine option. It would even make a lot of sense as a company car (if that allows convertibles), the 3 only makes 119g/km which is a great feat in a petrol engine like that.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff