ND MX5 'v' 944 Turbo
Discussion
I've owned my 1988 944 turbo 3 days and 300 miles. I thought it would be interesting to compare it, so far, to my 2016, 2.0 ND MX5.
944 turbo 1735mm wide
MX5 ND 1735mm wide
944 turbo bhp/tonne 158
MX5 ND bhp/tonne 155
(Later cars 176 v 175)
944 turbo 1416 kilos
MX5 ND 1035 kilos
944 turbo 220bhp
MX5 ND 158bhp
944 turbo 51/49 weight distribution
MX5 ND 50/50 weight distribution
The stats speak for themselves. On paper, the cars are near identical, 1735mm wide, 155 bhp per tonne, 50/50 weight distribution. Front engine, RWD, manuals. Separated by 40 years. Even searchable Nürburgring lap times are within 5 seconds of each other.
The 944's additional 315mm in length packs in 2 extra seats and 4x the luggage capacity of the MX5. It feels like a 747 inside compared to an F16, which, considering they are the same width, is astonishing.
However, the MX5's 6 speed box, compared to 5 speed in the 944 and NA engine, give very different driving characteristics. Factor in the faster ND steering and LSD and the MX5 feels quicker due to the shorter gearing, instant throttle response, lighter weight, and chuckability.
Of course, that changes when the turbo boosts and the 944 really starts to make ground back, and quickly.
So despite their near identical stats, the cars feel very different to drive. I think they would be Even Steven's on a B road.
The 944 rides better than the MX5, and the 944 is on 22 year old tyres. New tyres tomorrow. But the ND's Recaro seats are a lot comfier.
The 944 gearbox has a longer throw but feels more natural. The ND is slightly notchy but quicker. There isn't much in it, they are both great but the overall shift experience with drivetrain / clutch / shift feel just goes the way of the 944. Its very close and there are pluses and minuses. In both heel & toe is natural.
In 40 years, we have lost packaging, visibility, build quality, ride comfort and interior space, and, of course, pop-ups! We have gained MPG, emissions and alleged safety improvements.
It's early days, and I'm looking forward to having the 944 properly serviced and checked over before I can form a true comparison of this 40 year age gap with remarkable similarities.
944 turbo 1735mm wide
MX5 ND 1735mm wide
944 turbo bhp/tonne 158
MX5 ND bhp/tonne 155
(Later cars 176 v 175)
944 turbo 1416 kilos
MX5 ND 1035 kilos
944 turbo 220bhp
MX5 ND 158bhp
944 turbo 51/49 weight distribution
MX5 ND 50/50 weight distribution
The stats speak for themselves. On paper, the cars are near identical, 1735mm wide, 155 bhp per tonne, 50/50 weight distribution. Front engine, RWD, manuals. Separated by 40 years. Even searchable Nürburgring lap times are within 5 seconds of each other.
The 944's additional 315mm in length packs in 2 extra seats and 4x the luggage capacity of the MX5. It feels like a 747 inside compared to an F16, which, considering they are the same width, is astonishing.
However, the MX5's 6 speed box, compared to 5 speed in the 944 and NA engine, give very different driving characteristics. Factor in the faster ND steering and LSD and the MX5 feels quicker due to the shorter gearing, instant throttle response, lighter weight, and chuckability.
Of course, that changes when the turbo boosts and the 944 really starts to make ground back, and quickly.
So despite their near identical stats, the cars feel very different to drive. I think they would be Even Steven's on a B road.
The 944 rides better than the MX5, and the 944 is on 22 year old tyres. New tyres tomorrow. But the ND's Recaro seats are a lot comfier.
The 944 gearbox has a longer throw but feels more natural. The ND is slightly notchy but quicker. There isn't much in it, they are both great but the overall shift experience with drivetrain / clutch / shift feel just goes the way of the 944. Its very close and there are pluses and minuses. In both heel & toe is natural.
In 40 years, we have lost packaging, visibility, build quality, ride comfort and interior space, and, of course, pop-ups! We have gained MPG, emissions and alleged safety improvements.
It's early days, and I'm looking forward to having the 944 properly serviced and checked over before I can form a true comparison of this 40 year age gap with remarkable similarities.
Interesting comparison. Respective list prices of the two cars are very different though- the Porsche would’ve been around £35k new in 1988? So equivalent to more like a £70k car in 2016, which the MX-5 is not- so build quality probably reflects the market segment they are sold into.
My son had an MR2 Mk 3 when I bought my ND. You got a front trunk which houses the spare but, remove it, to put it on par with the ND and it's a good size. Inside you get large door binnacles and compartments and behind the seats is a huge compartment you could get a tent and luggage in.
Toyota missed a trick by only fitting the 138bhp engine when a 190bhp engine was available, a common swop.
The MR2 Mk 3 is criminally cheap in the UK and probably every bit as good as the Mazda, in pristine condition.
Toyota missed a trick by only fitting the 138bhp engine when a 190bhp engine was available, a common swop.
The MR2 Mk 3 is criminally cheap in the UK and probably every bit as good as the Mazda, in pristine condition.
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff