RE: Mazda MX-5 RF: Driven
Discussion
The Crack Fox said:
I really hate to disappoint you, but I have driven one. I have driven them all, in fact, and even the MGB and Elan that inspired the original. Here's a film I made celebrating 25 years of the MX-5. ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZudJiJcw3s I even made a film about why a good mk1 makes more sense than the new MX-5, the very early MX-5 featured is my own car, I've owned it for a decade, see here ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LKk5TzC-gI
No offence taken. x
Fair enough if that's your opinion. Your original comment contained assertions that were plain wrong, with a throwaway, troll-like tone. You can hardly blame me for assuming you didn't know what you're talking about. No offence taken. x
I find that Mazda can produce a new MX-5 that's only 120Kg heavier than the original 1989 Mk1, given the advances in safety, rigidity, etc. quite enterprising of them. They could have just make the interior plastics better, the whole car heavier, and given it a turbo, like everyone else does. That they've taken the lightweight route instead and that it's one of the last remaining NA, RWD, relatively lightweight sports cars, with high compression ratio, high RPM peak torque and a limited slip diff (on the 2.0 anyway), is in my mind to be commended by petrolheads everywhere.
I'm not sure what you'd change to make this more "brave" without destroying its market. Would you care to give some specifics?
Mr-B said:
ian2144 said:
I'm guessing the boot space in this will be even smaller than the soft top and that's only big enough for 2 or 3 Tesco bags.
3 litres less than the soft top.I thought the design was quite brave, they could have just done a safe re-make of what they did with the Mk3's folding hard top, fair play to them for trying this.
Yes it may be £2,000 more, but with that roof it starts to feel and look like a £20k+ car. Unfortunately the standard car at £20K (for a decent spec) seems rather expensive, especially as you can pick up a very nice mk1 for 20% of that cost.
The RF brings the MX5 right into 2017 and should be celebrated for it.
Just looking at the NC's hardtop/soft-top sales figures you can see that in the real world, people don't mind losing that extra little bit of performance for the advantages and refinement of the hardtop and I can't see this one being any different.
The RF brings the MX5 right into 2017 and should be celebrated for it.
Just looking at the NC's hardtop/soft-top sales figures you can see that in the real world, people don't mind losing that extra little bit of performance for the advantages and refinement of the hardtop and I can't see this one being any different.
Vocht said:
Yes it may be £2,000 more, but with that roof it starts to feel and look like a £20k+ car. Unfortunately the standard car at £20K (for a decent spec) seems rather expensive, especially as you can pick up a very nice mk1 for 20% of that cost.
The RF brings the MX5 right into 2017 and should be celebrated for it.
Just looking at the NC's hardtop/soft-top sales figures you can see that in the real world, people don't mind losing that extra little bit of performance for the advantages and refinement of the hardtop and I can't see this one being any different.
In 2017 a 20k car is a 1.2 golf. The RF brings the MX5 right into 2017 and should be celebrated for it.
Just looking at the NC's hardtop/soft-top sales figures you can see that in the real world, people don't mind losing that extra little bit of performance for the advantages and refinement of the hardtop and I can't see this one being any different.
Also that NA won't have LED headlights , Bluetooth , be as fast.
If a 1992 Honda CRX Del Sol married then mated with a 1992 Toyota MR2 then I think this would be the millenial baby they created.
Will be nice to see one on the street and see if the proportions look the same as they do in the pics - have a feeling it will be better in the metal than in the pics.
Will be nice to see one on the street and see if the proportions look the same as they do in the pics - have a feeling it will be better in the metal than in the pics.
The Crack Fox said:
I really hate to disappoint you, but I have driven one. I have driven them all, in fact, and even the MGB and Elan that inspired the original. Here's a film I made celebrating 25 years of the MX-5. ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZudJiJcw3s I even made a film about why a good mk1 makes more sense than the new MX-5, the very early MX-5 featured is my own car, I've owned it for a decade, see here ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LKk5TzC-gI
No offence taken. x
You scoffed at the nd having climate control, my 1991 NA import has aircon, hardly much different is it?No offence taken. x
Edited by The Crack Fox on Tuesday 17th January 21:30
The Crack Fox said:
RobDickinson said:
You on crack?
Yes. It's delicious.Back to the car, really wasn't sure when the initial pics were released, but as others have said on the flesh at FoS out did look really quite nice. Yes, an awkward view from a couple of angles but very pleasant.
Unfortunately, I couldn't get over the electric steering in the convertible, nor the fact that my head was about four inches away from the header rail. Lack of cabin storage is irritating too.
Perhaps in ten years once I've bored of my current mk2, and the aftermarket have geared up to enable me to build the vast I'd really want.
TheDrBrian said:
Vocht said:
Yes it may be £2,000 more, but with that roof it starts to feel and look like a £20k+ car. Unfortunately the standard car at £20K (for a decent spec) seems rather expensive, especially as you can pick up a very nice mk1 for 20% of that cost.
The RF brings the MX5 right into 2017 and should be celebrated for it.
Just looking at the NC's hardtop/soft-top sales figures you can see that in the real world, people don't mind losing that extra little bit of performance for the advantages and refinement of the hardtop and I can't see this one being any different.
In 2017 a 20k car is a 1.2 golf. The RF brings the MX5 right into 2017 and should be celebrated for it.
Just looking at the NC's hardtop/soft-top sales figures you can see that in the real world, people don't mind losing that extra little bit of performance for the advantages and refinement of the hardtop and I can't see this one being any different.
Also that NA won't have LED headlights , Bluetooth , be as fast.
To me, the RF looks like it needs to be a bit wider. The extra height of the buttresses just makes it look too narrow, especially in that rear three quarter view. But I guess that adding even more bespoke panels would've made it cost a whole lot more than £20k, and I'm sure aesthetics don't really matter when you're chucking it down a suitably twisty road anyway.
Hmmm - not sure about this RF version.
I had, until recently, the Mk3 MX5 Coupe.
One thing which always annoyed me about the Mk3 Coupe was, top down, an excessive amount of of cold wind hitting the back of your head. Compared to, say, a Toyota MR2 Mk3 which I always found very civilised top down in comparison. It was also, I gather, worse than the normal softop in this respect due to the slightly different boot lid design.
When I saw the RF I thought it was true targa top but as the rear window folds away top down, I would image the problem would still be same - maybe worse. In fact reading a few early road tests it seems there is also a big problem with wind buffeting too around the buttresses over 55MPH with the top down.
So, overall I think I would pass on this and go for the softop should I be in the market for one in the future.
On the positive side, I think it looks pretty good from most angles and I am sure it is more refined top-up.
I had, until recently, the Mk3 MX5 Coupe.
One thing which always annoyed me about the Mk3 Coupe was, top down, an excessive amount of of cold wind hitting the back of your head. Compared to, say, a Toyota MR2 Mk3 which I always found very civilised top down in comparison. It was also, I gather, worse than the normal softop in this respect due to the slightly different boot lid design.
When I saw the RF I thought it was true targa top but as the rear window folds away top down, I would image the problem would still be same - maybe worse. In fact reading a few early road tests it seems there is also a big problem with wind buffeting too around the buttresses over 55MPH with the top down.
So, overall I think I would pass on this and go for the softop should I be in the market for one in the future.
On the positive side, I think it looks pretty good from most angles and I am sure it is more refined top-up.
It's quite a pretty thing, IMO. If the car lives on the street, as a daily driver, I can see it being the attractive option. As a garaged plaything, the roadster would be best no doubt, but like its predecessors it they will probably only become playthings in the used market.
Also better than a lift-off hardtop which, like my S2000's, stands in the garage waiting for me to reverse the Honda into it.
Also better than a lift-off hardtop which, like my S2000's, stands in the garage waiting for me to reverse the Honda into it.
herebebeasties said:
The Crack Fox said:
Every generation gets taller, fatter, frumpier and less fun, doesn't it? So predictable, so dull...
Be brave, Mazda!
One shouldn't feed the trolls, but the new car is:Be brave, Mazda!
* 5mm lower
* 42kg lighter
* Less cutesy/frumpy in design (subjective, I guess, but how anyone with eyes could genuinely think otherwise eludes me)
* Generally rated by most motoring journalists as a better effort than the car it replaces
Have you actually driven one, or even an older one with which to compare? Thought not.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff