Thinking about a mx5

[keo]

Hi evreryone i have been thinking about getting an mx5 latley but not sure if it is for me. I have had a little go of my mates mk1 1.6 import. He told me the 1.6 was the one to go for? It did drive nice, lots of feed back through the wheel and a lovley gear change. But i just felt that it was to slow for me. So i think i would prefer a 1.8. I am thinking of going to look at these ones. What are peoples opinions?

http://classifieds.pistonheads.com/classifieds/use...

http://classifieds.pistonheads.com/classifieds/use...

http://classifieds.pistonheads.com/classifieds/use...

I have currently got a clio trophy so if i sold that and got one of the above i would have some left over money which would be handy as i am hoping to buy my first house next year. Had the trophy for three years and i dont want to regret selling it, but the little mazdas look fun so should hopefuly keep me entertained.

Thanks

[geeeman]

i picked up a supercharged mk 1 eunos... amazing, and v quick (200bhp)

[5paul5]

The 1.8 will be just as slow, its a slightly heavier car so most of the extra horses are lost hauling it along. Its not about outright performance with these cars more the driving dynamics. You could of course go down the F1 route.

[MX-5 Lazza]

1st car is a JDM Eunos Roadster.
2nd looks like a 1.8i with PAS as an optional extra.
3rd is what it claims. Not sure why the electric aerial is at half-mast in all the pictures though.

As for Mk1 1.6 vs 1.8. The 1.8 IS faster than the 1.6. The early 1.6s were pretty light (only the 1st couple of years) so were a bit quicker but comparing a '93 1.6 to a 94 1.8, both cars would be about the same weight but the 1.8 would have an extra 15 horses and flatter torque.
The Mk2.5 Sport linked would be the quickest car of those linked but might not feel it.

Speed in an MX5 is missing the point though. In an MX5 it isn't about accelerating, it's about not slowing down. On a PH hoon I've been held up badly by some pretty serious cars in a standard Mk2.5 Sport.

[5paul5]

Well some official figures actually give the 1.6 a quicker 0-60 time than the 1.8. Its splitting hairs really, i have owned several with both size engines and no difference in performance, some say the 1.6 is the better/revvier engine, just go on condition and watch for rust.

[Digby]

First thing I would do is start by looking at stuff for £1000 to £1500! You don't need to spend more than that unless the car has numerous extras bolted on that you would do yourself anyway.

[keo]

Thanks for the help everyone, you all know your stuff. Its given me something to think about, will start the search in the new year

[gd49]

MX-5 Lazza said:

3rd is what it claims. Not sure why the electric aerial is at half-mast in all the pictures though.

My guess is because it's broken - its what mine did when it stopped working, made a horrible grinding noise but wouldn't extend fully. Not a major issue, but won't have good radio reception without replacing the aerial.

[Reechard]

Keo, dont know someone called Woz who has an mr2 do you?

I would say go for the 1.8, it only has maybe 15-20bhp more than the 1.6 but it is noticeable.
Other than that they are almost identical.

If you had some cash left over then supercharging or turboing the cars arent too hard to do. Im currently looking for turbo parts on my 1.6 mk1.

Will help have a glance over any cars you find and post the links too.

[keo]

Reechard i do! Woz is a good mate He has given up with me keep changing my mind over cars but i have decided i want a change now. I am guessing you were the bloke driving the mx5 who did a perfect 360 at the ring? I saw the video on fb, i was impressed haha. Thanks for the offer i might take you up on that!

[Reechard]

Hahaha yes that was me :-)

We have met, when you were at combe. Think it might of been one of your first times on track, or was just a novice day?

If you need any help then just ask. Woz has got my number if you needed advice etc about the 5s.

Great cars they are. You wont regret going for one.

[Rogue86]

Everyone should own an MX5 at least once in their life.

As for the 1.6 Vs 1.8 argument, real world performance is identical. So much so that Mazda reduced the power of later 1600s because nobody was buying the 1800s (relatively speaking) for the sake of slightly bigger brakes, beefier driveshafts, extra bracing etc.

I'd probably have another 1.6 purely because they feel a bit 'revvier' in comparison. Neither are fast cars, and in modern terms you'll struggle to lose even moderately sporty hatchbacks in a straight line. The chassis is very confidence-inspiring though, and even with average driving skills it will make you feel like Senna in the bends. If the power isn't enough for you, either buy an FI car in the first-place, or look at an FD RX7 which behaves in a very similar way (except has 280bhp to start with).

[Sbloxxy]

Echo what everyone says about 1.6 and 1.8 being very similar in performance. However, the later Mk1 1.8 Eunos (August 1995 onwards)had a few tweaks which included a lighter flywheel, 16-bit ECU and a final drive ratio of 4.3:1. While power is only marginally higher at 133bhp (up from 130), the engine revs like a good 1.6 and is smoother than the original 1.8. These models can be identified by the Mk2 column stalks, repositioned interior lights and by a green 'roadster' badge on the rear. Worth hunting out as they feel a fair bit quicker than the earlier cars.

[MX-5 Lazza]

Rogue86 said:

As for the 1.6 Vs 1.8 argument, real world performance is identical. So much so that Mazda reduced the power of later 1600s because nobody was buying the 1800s (relatively speaking) for the sake of slightly bigger brakes, beefier driveshafts, extra bracing etc.

That sounds like a lot of 2+2 = 22!

Real world performance comparing an early 1.6 to a late 1.8 is similar with the 1.8 being just a little quicker and with more power/torque in midrange so better for day-to-day driving.
The 1.6 was replaced with the 1.8 in 1993 as the car needed more power to cope with the additional weight resulting from the extra safety equipment they had to fit. The 1.8 still gave it a small improvement in the performance figures (on paper).

The 1.6 was reintroduced in UK with a detuned engine as a cheap insurance option. Nothing at all to do with making a bigger performance difference to the 1.8. In fact the later 1.6 & 1.8 had the same safety equipment so are also pretty much the same weight.
The detuned 1.6 was a European market offering only. JDM 1.6 cars always had the 114bhp engine, even after the launch of the 1.8.

[keo]

Thanks for the info everyone. I like the sound of a RX7 as well, just a bit weary of them, if they go wrong its going to be expensive. MX5 would be alot cheaper fun

[markcoopers]

that black 2.5 sport has been sold......to a friend of mine i believe

[ambuletz]

markcoopers said:

that black 2.5 sport has been sold......to a friend of mine i believe

I believe you should get that friend of yours to get some pictures up on here.

[matt3001]

Does the 1.6 (I don't know the exact cc) fall into the cheaper roadtax category, think the cut-off is 1579cc on pre-01 stuff?

Does supercharging effect the insurance much? Even if you intend to run on a classic policy?

[Legend83]

Keo - I may be able to help here... "cough cough supercharged MX5 in classifieds cough cough"...

PM me if you want more details.

[pewe]

Any form of performance modification will affect the insurance.
IIRC typically they'll add ten percent for every extra bhp you achieve so go from 116 bhp to 160 and you'll pay 44% more.
They will also probably limit the mileage.
Ask me how I know!!
Having said that a standard MK1 should qualify for classic insurance under the 20 year rule.
In terms of performance/handling even the 1.6 should be good learning curve especially if you haven't driven rear wheel drive before.
Go for it.
Cheers, Pewe.

Thanks Reechard vv, noted to contact them for my renewal.....

Edited by pewe on Tuesday 8th January 19:27