Mazda MX-5 RF: Driven

Is a more refined and cosseting MX-5 the one we actually want?

Here's an interesting stat with which to approach the MX-5 RF: the previous hardtop MX-5, the Mk3 RC, accounted for 80 per cent of UK MX-5 sales when it was offered here. 80 per cent! This time around, owing to its new look and greater premium, Mazda has lowered that; still, with a "conservative" 50:50 split expected between regular MX-5 and this car, it's more significant than you probably expected.

Now if we could just drop it a few millimetres...

There will be no danger this time of mistaking it for a regular MX-5 at least, because the Retractable Fastback is certainly a distinctive little car. It says a lot for the subjectivity of design that two consecutive comments in the PH prices story went from "this... is just awful looking" to "really like the look of this"; there appears to be very little middle ground with this car. For what it's worth the RF appears a more cohesive design in the metal, albeit with a slightly tall and awkward view from the rear thanks to those buttresses. The design aim with those was to taper the rear of the car, make the rear haunches appear broader and push the eye back (where it apparently views centrally on the Roadster). Certainly in profile the RF looks good, albeit in a 'Honey I shrunk the front-engined GT' kind of way.

Those changes are arguably less important to PH than what's under the RF's sheet metal though (aluminium is used extensively in the roof actually, to keep weight down). Compared to the equivalent Roadster, the RF carries an additional 40kg for the 1.5 and 45kg for the 2.0. To combat this, and to keep the handling characteristics as MX-5y as possible, the RF features a thicker front anti-roll bar, tweaks to a chassis cross-member and retuned springs and dampers. The roof does bring some additional torsional rigidity, but not a sufficient amount for Mazda to state a tangible difference.

Plenty of aluminium and little steel keep it light

Targa briefs
On the road and with the roof down - just 13 seconds each way, but only at up to 6mph - the RF does a decent job of playing the mini-Targa. Buffetting is kept at bay well (thank the new aero board behind the headrests), the ride is comfortable (indeed Mazda says it's "more cultured") and it's probably less breezy than a full drop-top, though it is hard to be definitive without a back to back. However at motorway cruising speeds cracks begin to appear in the facade; much like the 911 with which it shares some design cues, wind noise becomes an issue behind the driver's ear. It's a bizarre sensation, with your hair largely unruffled but your ears unpleasantly disturbed. Perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect more of an MX-5 and perhaps - again like the Porsche - it will prove less of a problem once the cars are here, but it's something to be aware of.

With more interesting roads to tackle, the RF becomes distinctly more enjoyable. Carried over unchanged from the standard car, both 1.5- and 2.0-litre engine are excellent, revvy and eager in a fashion we thought was long absent from the mainstream. Indeed the smallest engine spins right up to 7,500rpm; sure, it loses some smoothness up there, but 7,500rpm! Combined with a slick and short-geared six-speed 'box, both engines are a joy.

On sunny and largely empty mountain roads, the RF merrily parps along and displays many of the dynamic traits familiar from the Roadster. Trouble is, some are better than others. Despite the additional weight on top, the car feels very well balanced front to rear and agile in a way many heavier cars have to contrive a sense of. However it never feels quite as sharp as a Roadster, in much the same way you don't feel quite yourself when exercising after Christmas: everything feels broadly the same, yet each response is a fraction out compared to a few weeks before. Just a fraction though.

Do you like it? Do you not?

The steering for the RF has more assistance off centre than standard and less once some lock is applied but it still doesn't give you a great idea of the front wheels' activity. The lack of reach adjustment for the wheel still frustrates, too. And while roll feels slightly better contained here, the MX-5 still doesn't feel as precise as something like - you knew it was coming at some point - a Toyota GT86. Perhaps it doesn't need to be. Despite a base which promises much then, this RF still feels a little too vague to succeed as a proper sports car. There is of course the aftermarket to cater for that, with sharper dynamics and a more exciting look surely just a suspension drop away.

Daily grind
All that being said, the USP of the RF against the Roadster won't be in the 'thrashing around the countryside' stakes. It will be in using it every day, where the Retractable Fastback makes a convincing case for itself. Roof raised it's far more refined than the standard car, thanks to additional soundproofing in the roof and the interior (up to and including thicker floor mats). It doesn't suddenly transform into a C-Class Coupe, though it is certainly accommodating enough for longer journeys. Provided you can fit comfortably, that is. Luggage space is unchanged (alright, so 127 is three litres less), which means the RF can take a pair of carry on bags in the boot and probably pull off that mini GT thing in more than just appearance.

This is where the RF message appears to get a little confused though. By attempting to keep the weight as low as possible, the RF probably isn't as luxurious and cosseting as it could be. But then it's not quite as enjoyable as the standard car to drive, leaving it a bit stuck in the middle. It's far from bad, don't misunderstand, it just doesn't appear to have its role tremendously well defined.

Good, but we'd save the £2K and stick with standard

Half rice, half ... pasta?
Moreover, there is of course a whole new model range (from Fiat) that could cater to the more opulent side of MX-5 motoring. If Mazda is that committed to 'lightweighting' and driver focus, why on earth isn't the small performance roadster an MX-5 (rather than an Abarth) and the luxurious, relaxing one a Fiat? Italian and turbocharged surely suits that latter remit as well as Japanese and naturally aspirated suits a sporty one. Bizarre.

As it is the MX-5 RF remains a thoroughly decent little car, albeit one that's hard to recommend over the regular MX-5. That car is a reminder of when small, light cars were just that, with everything good and bad which that entails. It's a refreshing roadster, one that deserves most of the praise heaped upon it. By complicating the recipe it feels diluted ever so slightly, which is a shame. Stick with the standard car if you're considering an MX-5, as its compromises are worth the additional enjoyment compared to this car. Or even better Mazda, get cars like those SEMA concepts somewhere close to production; they could be brilliant.

MAZDA MX-5 RF 2.0
Engine: 1,998cc, 4-cyl
Transmission: 6-speed manual, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 160@ 6,000rpm
Torque (lb ft): 148@4,600rpm
0-62mph: 7.3sec
Top speed: 133mph
Weight: 1,120kg (with 75kg driver)
MPG: 40.9 (NEDC combined)
CO2: 161g/km
Price: £23,095 (SE-L Nav), £25,695 (Sport Nav), £27,095 (Sport Nav auto), £28,995 (Launch Edition)

MAZDA MX-5 RF 1.5
Engine: 1,496cc, 4-cyl
Transmission: 6-speed manual, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 131@ 7,000rpm
Torque (lb ft): 111@4,800rpm
0-62mph: 8.3sec
Top speed: 127mph
Weight: 1,090kg (with 75kg driver)
MPG: 47.1 (NEDC combined)
CO2: 139g/km
Price: £22,195 (SE-L), £24,795 (Sport Nav)

OP Posts Only

Prev 2 3 4 5 Next

OP Posts Only

Author

Discussion

mikey P 500

Original Poster

1,239 posts

187 months