RE: Mazda MX-5 RF: UK Review

RE: Mazda MX-5 RF: UK Review

Tuesday 28th March 2017

Mazda MX-5 RF: UK Review

"What's the point of the RF?" asks PH's in-house MX-5 fanboy



If you saw our recent videoblog on the RF you'll have seen me ask if is this the MX-5 for people who hate MX-5s. Before concluding I wasn't even sure if it's an MX-5 for people who LOVE MX-5s.

A quick re-cap. The RF - Retractable Fastback for those who weren't listening at the back - is the Mk4/ND take on the NC generation's Roadster Coupe, launched in 2006. That car was something of a hit, the minimal 37kg weight penalty for an SLK-style folding hardtop considered minimal sacrifice for the extra security and best of both worlds refinement. By the end of production the RC was the only option if you wanted the 2.0-litre engine and accounted for 80 per cent of third-gen UK MX-5 sales as a result.

Credit to Mazda. It could have just repeated the exercise, reasoning the popularity of the RC was the combination of a similar silhouette to the roadster with greater protection. But no. For the ND generation we get a bold new look and a much more deliberate distinction from the soft-top. More targa than roadster, the RF's swooping buttresses mean it has a more coupe-like appearance with the roof up. There's also a subtle shift to a more luxurious and grown-up feel, leaving the roadster to play the sportier card. With the roof up at least it partly satisfies a curiosity for an MX-5 coupe that has been there since the experiments back with the original NA generation car.


Nearly-man
And it's almost a really good-looking machine too, especially in the signature £670 Machine Grey paint launched with the car. I say almost. I'd like to see one on lower suspension before calling it one way or the other because the styling genuinely is sensitive enough that 20mm here or there could make all the difference. That the 5mm increase in roof height seems noticeable is telling.

The idea behind the RF is sound and from some angles there's a hint of Z4 coupe about it that might just convince those who've considered the roadster too girly thus far. But from others it seems a little truncated and a slight wheelbase stretch or lower roofline away from perfection. With a little of the 'on stilts' ride height chopped out and some arch-filling wheels there's hope the RF could finally deliver on the physical muscle the MX-5 has thus far lacked, in all its four generations. Over to you BBR. Or maybe Flyin' Miata. There's little a V8 can't fix, after all...

Possibly getting ahead of myself there. Returning to the car in hand - namely the one you can actually buy - what do you lose over a soft-top MX-5? At the entry level to the range a 131hp 1.5-litre MX-5 Convertible costs just £18,495 while its RF equivalent starts at £22,195. So £3,700 for starters. That narrows to £2,000 by the time you upgrade to equivalent SE-L Nav (the base for the RF) and/or compare the 2.0-litre models. To get the ball rolling there's also a limited run of 500 launch edition models at £28,995 with a contrast roof/mirrors/wing plus desirable BBS wheels and Alcantara trimmed Recaro seats.


Auto no-no
Tellingly the hardtop also introduces the option of a six-speed automatic should, god forbid, you think this is a worthwhile alternative to one of the best manual transmissions still on the market. Mazda didn't give the option of driving this on the launch so, who knows, for the additional £1,400 maybe this makes for the ultimate ND MX-5 in the current range. I'll happily live in ignorance if that's the case - apparently 15 per cent of pre-orders have gone this way though.

This far and no driving impressions? Well, in all honesty the look and the additional cost are really the main factors to consider here. Because in terms of the way it drives the RF is pretty much as per the roadster version. Which is to say a good thing.

A 45kg weight penalty seems reasonable given how different it looks, a significant proportion of that extra weight coming from additional soundproofing rather than roof hardware. There's more in the rooflining as well as wheelarches and transmission tunnel and while better than the soft-top it's no Mercedes SL.

Anyone much over six foot is going to find the interior on the cosy side but if you fit the bill there's much to enjoy in the Mazda's interior. The materials aren't going to trouble the Germans but your cheapest TT Roadster is £29,845. And front-wheel drive. And the look is stylish, the touchpoints all well executed and pleasing. Most of all the RF retains that lightness of touch to the controls of its roadster brother. Mainly because it IS light.


Circle jerk
Much is discussed about the virtuous circle of weight saving but the MX-5 is living proof. You don't need multi-mode damper modes if there's less body weight to control; power steering howsoever delivered (electric in this case) is less intrusive through skinny tyres and every control input feels both light and positive. With, at most, 160hp (see previous Flyin' Miata comment if this challenges your masculinity) there's little point wishing for tyre-scorching acceleration, the joy instead coming from finger-tip control and the nuances of turbo-free throttle response, a light clutch and precise short-throw manual shift. This new Skyactiv generation of engines really are delightful too; crisp, zingy and eager to rev out. The more so with a few miles on them as experience shows too.

Minor tweaks have been made to springs, dampers and body stiffening but even with the Sport model's Bilstein dampers and standard Torsen limited-slip diff the MX-5 isn't perhaps as sharp a driving experience as you might hope. Indeed, the general shift seems to have been to a more neutral set-up, though this does result in a slightly less edgy ride than the last Bilstein-damped MX-5 Sport I drove.

Perhaps significantly the extra money and the hardtop option start edging into GT86/BRZ territory and, back to back, the Toyobaru options are noticeably more rewarding from a driver's perspective. At least out of the box. Even in RF form the equivalent 2.0-litre MX-5 is at least 100kg lighter than a base GT86, offsetting the on-paper power disadvantage. If you want a proper sporty coupe you'd be better off investing the extra grand into the Toyota or Subaru though, bringing us full circle to the inevitable conclusion that the better MX-5 for MX-5 fans probably remains the roadster. Which sounds ungrateful but isn't meant to be. The RF adds a new and distinct option to the MX-5 range and one with a subtle but significantly different remit. And any new car on the market pushing a recipe of rear-wheel drive, zingy naturally-aspirated power, close-stacked manual transmission and an emphasis on lightweight thrills has to be a good thing.


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)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author
Discussion

great_kahn

Original Poster:

83 posts

86 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Cue everyone to ignore this and buy the RF.

FN2TypeR

7,091 posts

93 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
article said:
Weight: 1,090kg (with 75kg driver)
Pretty impressive in this day and age IMO.

dunnoreally

960 posts

108 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Having had a go in one at the launch event, I think this car makes perfect sense. It still has almost all the advantages of the old RC - it's basically all the fun of the ragtop, but a bit easier to live with if you want to run it as your only car. Sure, they didn't have to do the fastback targa thing, but it's certainly pretty striking, and hardly makes the car any worse from a driving standpoint.

I guess it comes down to whether you'd prefer this, a Toybaru, a 370Z or even something like a base-model TT as your affordable entry-level sports car. Personally, I reckon more choice is never a bad thing.

elvismiggell

1,635 posts

151 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
FN2TypeR said:
article said:
Weight: 1,090kg (with 75kg driver)
Pretty impressive in this day and age IMO.
Worth noting that's for the 1.5.

The 2.0 goes up a little more;

article said:
1,120kg (with 75kg driver)
Still not bad though! I've got the ST and love how light and nimble it feels compared to the various hatchbacks I'd had before that.

PhantomPH

4,043 posts

225 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
great_kahn said:
Cue everyone to ignore this and buy the RF.
Eh? The article says (almost in as many words) that the RF is the best MX-5. What is to ignore?

PunterCam

1,069 posts

195 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
These aren't meant to be aggressive, low, masculine looking cars. That's a lot of the appeal. (I still don't understand peoples desire for their car to look "aggressive" - it's a car, and most of us are gentle little flowers).

I don't think this is a particularly attractive car in photos, but in the flesh I entirely expect the dinky size and details to look great. What's wrong with quirky looking cars?! Many of my favourite cars have had odd proportions, or tiny wheels, or enormous overhangs - it doesn't matter. It's a desirable little thing, and Mazda broadening their potential market (half the point of a convertible is cruising around enjoying the world, remember) with an auto is hardly the worst thing in the world either...

I quite like it. It's ten times more interesting than the BRZ/GT86 things which sounded great on paper, but really have very little draw.

culpz

4,882 posts

112 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
It still doesn't look right to me though. I'm not even convinced it looks better than the roadster and i'm not really a fan of those to begin with.

After seeing the older MX-5 Coupe's that you can get in Japan, this just looks a bit daft. I'd always pick a coupe over a roadster any day.

I don't want to be completely negative. I'd love a drive of one as they do look like alot of fun on the roads with usable performance and modern mod-cons.

JohnGoodridge

529 posts

195 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
The second child always has to work harder. Would we even be having this discussion if the RF had launched before the soft top? I saw several of these over the weekend on a trip to the westcountry; they looked great, and by all accounts they drive really well also. IMHO the RF suffers largely by comparison to it's brother.

Although a part of me wishes Mazda had just built a fixed roof coupe as a GT86 rival. But I suppose few people would have bought it, and it's not very Mazda. Ho hum.


Ean218

1,963 posts

250 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
We test drove one at the weekend, looking to replace the missus' hard top roadster.

She absolutley loved it, it looks very different from anything else out there and handled better than the old one.

The only slight downside is wind noise from the flying buttresses, but the targa type top means the wind blowing around in the cabin isn't too bad, even galloping along.

PhantomPH

4,043 posts

225 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Ean218 said:
The only slight downside is wind noise from the flying buttresses, but the targa type top means the wind blowing around in the cabin isn't too bad, even galloping along.
Trying to encourage my folks to change their Roadster to the RF, but my Mother seems to think there is less visibility with the buttresses than in the Roadster which would cause problems in looking over left shoulder at angled junctions or when parking - did you guys find that? (They've not test driven yet, which would be the proof of the pudding of course!)

Cotic

469 posts

152 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Surely the difference between £18,495 and £22,195 is £3,700? Or is that a pertinent example of sports car man maths in action?

Benrad

650 posts

149 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Is the wind noise still bad or have they fixed it on production cars?

My Mk1 drives at NSL roof down most mornings on the way to work. I'm looking to replace it with an ND in a couple of years. Prefer the look of the RF but the wind noise at speed would be unacceptable to me unless it's better now given how people banged on about it in early reviews.

Leicesterdave

2,282 posts

180 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
My in-laws have just bought one. It's nice- but I'll always be a fast hatchback kind of person. But he's a petrolhead and very happy.

DM525i

76 posts

148 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
It is cars like this the only just about give me any faith in the future of motoring. Seriously well done Mazda. Love it, and the proper convertible. I'm starting the process of weening myself off Pistonheads and the motoring press in general. I am utterly depressed, I know all the gearbox tech is inevitable but it holds absolutely no interest for me (I have a physical reaction to it). Well done mazda for keeping the rear drive, manual alive.

Dan Trent

1,866 posts

168 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Cotic said:
Surely the difference between £18,495 and £22,195 is £3,700? Or is that a pertinent example of sports car man maths in action?
Not man maths, just bad maths! Now corrected, though to be fair there's no equivalent base model in the RF 1.5 so it's £2,000 like for like when you compare roadster 1.5 SE-L Nav with 1.5 RF SE-L Nav and likewise for the 2.0 versions.

And the wind noise is a fair point and one I missed in my review, mainly because I didn't notice it as being especially intrusive. Matt did on the launch though. But then he is a bit taller than me so maybe he's more in the slipstream! I guess I was driving mainly on twisty back roads too so less at a constant motorway speed and with more entertaining distractions. Because the glass between the buttresses drops too you don't have that 'swirl' of cabin you get on some similar cars, 911 Targa included. I guess try before you buy to figure out if it's annoying to you!

Cheers,

Dan

Ean218

1,963 posts

250 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
PhantomPH said:
Trying to encourage my folks to change their Roadster to the RF, but my Mother seems to think there is less visibility with the buttresses than in the Roadster which would cause problems in looking over left shoulder at angled junctions or when parking - did you guys find that? (They've not test driven yet, which would be the proof of the pudding of course!)
The rear window is very much smaller than the roadster when the roof is up, more a rectangular slot than a window, and you have pretty much the same view with the roof off. The buttresses don't get in the way at junctions, they are stepped in enough for it not to be a problem.

From a parking point of view, it is really only a small car, it comes with reversing sensors and a rear view camera is an option.

elvismiggell

1,635 posts

151 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Ean218 said:
From a parking point of view, it is really only a small car, it comes with reversing sensors and a rear view camera is an option.
I didn't think Mazda offered the rear view camera in the UK? Can't see it on the configurator.

suffolk009

5,373 posts

165 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
I'm not a fan of the looks of this generation anyway. The metalwork above front and rear arches just seems way out of proportion to me. The overly heavy roof doesn't bother me either way. Take it, leave it, don't much care.

The author is right about the ride height on Mazda MX5s. My Eunos has aftermarket coilovers, is about 3cm lower, and looks great on it - everything else totally standard.


C.A.R.

3,967 posts

188 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
This car never photographs well - especially with the roof panel 'down' - but I saw one recently at a dealership (and last year at Goodwood FoS) and I think 'in the metal' (terrible motoring speak) they really do look nicely proportioned. Yes, nothing a slightly different style of wheel and a lower ride-height couldn't benefit, but I think you could definitely say that about the GT86 / BRZ, which only seem to come with alloys which are ghastly.

I think this little RF is great. I just wish I could afford one! (and fit the kids in somewhere...)

Ean218

1,963 posts

250 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
elvismiggell said:
I didn't think Mazda offered the rear view camera in the UK? Can't see it on the configurator.
It's on the printed price list the dealer gave us and the salesman actually pointed it out when we said we couldn't see much out the back!