Why not a mk2 MX5
Discussion
Hi
I am looking to sell both my Civic and Spitfire and replace both with an MX5, I don't think you can have more fun for so little £.
I am tempted by a Mk2 as I will be using it as an everyday car so electric windows, AC and lower mileage is tempting, I think I also prefer them looks wise.
It seems though that PHers clearly favour the MK1 though, why is this? Am I missing a trick?
Thanks
Daz
I am looking to sell both my Civic and Spitfire and replace both with an MX5, I don't think you can have more fun for so little £.
I am tempted by a Mk2 as I will be using it as an everyday car so electric windows, AC and lower mileage is tempting, I think I also prefer them looks wise.
It seems though that PHers clearly favour the MK1 though, why is this? Am I missing a trick?
Thanks
Daz
Munter said:
MK1 is a "bit" more raw. But frankly I suspect it's also because the MK1 has in general had a lower price tag and offers about the same experience.
My opinion is you'll miss out on nothing of the experience having a MK2, but you will gain a bit of comfort.
That was basically my deduction of the situation! Sounds like exactly what I want! My opinion is you'll miss out on nothing of the experience having a MK2, but you will gain a bit of comfort.
My thoughts so far - The car feels very familiar if your a MK1 owner.
Mk2 chassis is definitely better IMO. It does feel Stiffer, stronger, less shakey. The engine is definitely a bit keener too particularly at high rpms, with a more noticeable second wind due to the intake system. I always felt the power/chassis balance was right in the Mk1 1.8. In my new one theres a definite feeling that it could handle yet more grunt.
The dashboard is nicer to look at but ultimately feels exactly the same in use. Everythings in pretty much the same place. Indicators are on the wrong side!
Mk2 seats are awful. Doorcards are awfully plain compared to nice leather/stainless on the old one. Boot is a fair chunk bigger.
Theres a few things where you just think 'why didnt they do that in the first place' ?
It looks more plain than the old one - good looking, but less eye-catching/retro. Less people turn and watch it go by (though that may be the noise/lack of).
Its too quiet as standard - more so than a standard Mk1 IMO. Desperately needs changing.
Hood is much better if you have a glass roof.
Ultimately a good Mk1 will be a better buy than a tatty Mk2, and vice versa. But given how little extra I paid for mine over a reasonable Mk1, I think theres a good reason to go with the latercar, particularly as a daily driver.
Theres no difference really in the servicing, upgrades, bits and bobs available.
It feels like Mk1, with a good few of the chinks ironed out, at the expense of a tiny bit of 'retro-cool'.
I'm pretty confident that once I've put my touch on the new one, with a bit of added noise and a geometry session etc, it will really come alive.
At the £2-3k mark then I think you should probably just look at both, and determine which of your priorities is met by which car.
gdaybruce said:
snotrag said:
Indicators are on the wrong side!
Indicators are, in fact, on the right side for right hand drive - same side all British cars had them before manufacturers standardised on European markets. Allows you to signal and change gear at the same time.
snotrag said:
Mk2 seats are awful. Doorcards are awfully plain compared to nice leather/stainless on the old one. Boot is a fair chunk bigger.
Its too quiet as standard - more so than a standard Mk1 IMO. Desperately needs changing.
The Mk2s I've sat in seemed to have exactly the same seats as my old '98 Mk1. Are you comparing like for like i.e. UK Mk1 with separate headrests?Its too quiet as standard - more so than a standard Mk1 IMO. Desperately needs changing.
Door-cards on Mk2 are also no more boring than the late UK Mk1s which had a plain flat board, most of them covered in black vinyl with a small round black speaker cover.
Again, my old '98 Mk1 1.8 was pretty much silent until I fitted the JRCAI. The Mk2.5 I replaced it with was no quieter but was smoother which gives the impression of being more refined.
The general consensus seems to be that cost-cutting resulted in Mk 2 cars being more likely to rust. Not sure if this is true, but that can be avoided (delayed!) by buying on condition and treating it against rust properly. Generally Mk 2 cars are viewed as a bit more comfortable for a daily driver. I use mine for one. Also the 6-speed offers slightly better economy over the 5-speed cars, although not much as the gearing is shorter.
I looked at various mk1 cars, but in the end went for a Mk2, as I felt it would be a better car to live with. Its simply a more developed, and more refined package, and from I could make out, lost none of the driving pleasure of the earlier cars.
All of these MX's are by their very nature, a bit spartan inside. But comparing "bog standard" spec interiors, I felt the Mk2 interior seemed generally better finished than in the Mk1, with better materials. The MK2 fascia is much improved, and the area around the centre air vents is much tidier. I thought the door cards looked smarter myself. There were little things too, such as the standard fit door speakers are better. Oh and there's airbags, if you like that sort of thing. I thought the seats weren't great in either car, to be quite honest.
FWIW, on my car at least, the indicators are on the left. ie same as most other cars.
The hood is better as its got the glass window with demister, as standard.
The ride is definitely better in the Mk2, and (on my car at least) its totally free from squeaks and rattles. Handling is utterly brilliant and feels just as good as the Mk1's I looked at.
The other thing, albeit minor, which helped swing it was the boot. Its got the spare wheel located in under the floor covering, which gives you a lot more usable space. The Mk1 was very limited in this respect, and would have made it hard work, if say, two of you were going away for a week.
I thought the engine seemed a better bet, as the manifold has variable length inlet ports, this gives better torque at lower revs than the mk1, you don't have to rev its nuts off to make progress. Also there are proper solid tappets, as opposed to hydraulic lifters.
As for noise, well depends what you are used to, but compared with any other car I think its pretty noisy. The engine isn't particularly refined, but then you can't expect much from an I4 with no counterbalance shafts. The exhaust note is reasonable, but not brilliant.
Its hard to say re the rust, to be honest I think they are all a little bit below average in this respect. Needless to say this one I bought was the most rust free of any that I viewed.
The only thing you don't get is pop up headlights, and there does seem to be a certain cache/chic attached to the MK1's. The MK1 styling looks a bit more like an Elan, but then a lot of people like the wavy coke-bottle profile of the MK2.
All of these MX's are by their very nature, a bit spartan inside. But comparing "bog standard" spec interiors, I felt the Mk2 interior seemed generally better finished than in the Mk1, with better materials. The MK2 fascia is much improved, and the area around the centre air vents is much tidier. I thought the door cards looked smarter myself. There were little things too, such as the standard fit door speakers are better. Oh and there's airbags, if you like that sort of thing. I thought the seats weren't great in either car, to be quite honest.
FWIW, on my car at least, the indicators are on the left. ie same as most other cars.
The hood is better as its got the glass window with demister, as standard.
The ride is definitely better in the Mk2, and (on my car at least) its totally free from squeaks and rattles. Handling is utterly brilliant and feels just as good as the Mk1's I looked at.
The other thing, albeit minor, which helped swing it was the boot. Its got the spare wheel located in under the floor covering, which gives you a lot more usable space. The Mk1 was very limited in this respect, and would have made it hard work, if say, two of you were going away for a week.
I thought the engine seemed a better bet, as the manifold has variable length inlet ports, this gives better torque at lower revs than the mk1, you don't have to rev its nuts off to make progress. Also there are proper solid tappets, as opposed to hydraulic lifters.
As for noise, well depends what you are used to, but compared with any other car I think its pretty noisy. The engine isn't particularly refined, but then you can't expect much from an I4 with no counterbalance shafts. The exhaust note is reasonable, but not brilliant.
Its hard to say re the rust, to be honest I think they are all a little bit below average in this respect. Needless to say this one I bought was the most rust free of any that I viewed.
The only thing you don't get is pop up headlights, and there does seem to be a certain cache/chic attached to the MK1's. The MK1 styling looks a bit more like an Elan, but then a lot of people like the wavy coke-bottle profile of the MK2.
Edited by robgee1964 on Wednesday 3rd August 16:46
DazBock said:
Hi
I am looking to sell both my Civic and Spitfire and replace both with an MX5, I don't think you can have more fun for so little £.
I am tempted by a Mk2 as I will be using it as an everyday car so electric windows, AC and lower mileage is tempting, I think I also prefer them looks wise.
It seems though that PHers clearly favour the MK1 though, why is this? Am I missing a trick?
Thanks
Daz
they look cooler and less girly. if you didn't care about the looks, you'd probably have a mk2.I am looking to sell both my Civic and Spitfire and replace both with an MX5, I don't think you can have more fun for so little £.
I am tempted by a Mk2 as I will be using it as an everyday car so electric windows, AC and lower mileage is tempting, I think I also prefer them looks wise.
It seems though that PHers clearly favour the MK1 though, why is this? Am I missing a trick?
Thanks
Daz
I had a mk1 Eunos RS Limited and have driven a UK mk2 1.8. The latter was nearly as raw, but it had much more wallowy handling, and felt quite a bit slower, from what I remember. I think the mk2 I drove though was an earlier one with 130 bhp rather than the later 140ish bhp so perhaps it was because it was carrying an extra 100 or so kg over my mk1 with no extra power... and the RS was on bilsteins so was likely much firmer than the mk2 I drove.
I dare say though, all things being equal, I can't see there being much difference. If anything I'd say the mk2 would have a better chassis and more grip.
A mk2 1.8 Sport 6-speed or RS would be my choice of the mk2s.
I dare say though, all things being equal, I can't see there being much difference. If anything I'd say the mk2 would have a better chassis and more grip.
A mk2 1.8 Sport 6-speed or RS would be my choice of the mk2s.
Night Runner said:
garrykiller said:
CanadianScot said:
Pop-up lights.
this 
I think the Mk 2 Bilsteins are supposed to be pretty decent. The Mk 1 Bilsteins are not so good from what I have seen posted here (although never tried them myself).
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff