mx5 mk3-3.5 changes to handling????
Discussion
I think it was something along the lines of Mazda ending up raising the suspension to get thru pedestrian safety of something stupid like that.. and somewhat messing up the handling.
Most mazda dealers knew this hence try to sell the cars with the eibach lowering kit.
Thankfully its something that can be fixed quite easily
Most mazda dealers knew this hence try to sell the cars with the eibach lowering kit.
Thankfully its something that can be fixed quite easily
TheArchitect said:
Can they sort it without the lowering as I don't fancy paying any more to insure it than i have too.
My Mk3 had had the geometry done prior to my purchase, and while it felt much better to drive than the other "standard" models, it was notably improved after having the suspension put back to the height it was when it left the factory.In terms of insurance, mine is with a specialist and is around £300 cheaper than the next cheapest quote I got for a "standard" car, and I have upgraded brakes, lowering and also pending an exhaust change at no extra cost.
Im with ad flux and have an eibach lowering kit on my focus, didnt really make much difference to the price but the after market wheels did.
Also can someone confirm if this is true. Was talking to a ford mechanic who was telling me that if a part is supplied by the vehicle manufacturer (as my eibach kit was) it can be considered as an optional extra rather than a modification and there fore cheaper to insure?
Also can someone confirm if this is true. Was talking to a ford mechanic who was telling me that if a part is supplied by the vehicle manufacturer (as my eibach kit was) it can be considered as an optional extra rather than a modification and there fore cheaper to insure?
ILOVELAMP said:
Im with ad flux and have an eibach lowering kit on my focus, didnt really make much difference to the price but the after market wheels did.
Also can someone confirm if this is true. Was talking to a ford mechanic who was telling me that if a part is supplied by the vehicle manufacturer (as my eibach kit was) it can be considered as an optional extra rather than a modification and there fore cheaper to insure?
Only if it was supplied from the factory, I believe. Mazda never supplied any UK car with the lower springs from the factory and as such I doubt you'd have a case in a court (all suspension adjustments were dealer-fit or aftermarket only). If Ford sell a car with the lowering kit from the factory (and it isn't a dealer-fit accessory) then you may have a case for what you suggest.Also can someone confirm if this is true. Was talking to a ford mechanic who was telling me that if a part is supplied by the vehicle manufacturer (as my eibach kit was) it can be considered as an optional extra rather than a modification and there fore cheaper to insure?
rfn said:
ILOVELAMP said:
Im with ad flux and have an eibach lowering kit on my focus, didnt really make much difference to the price but the after market wheels did.
Also can someone confirm if this is true. Was talking to a ford mechanic who was telling me that if a part is supplied by the vehicle manufacturer (as my eibach kit was) it can be considered as an optional extra rather than a modification and there fore cheaper to insure?
Only if it was supplied from the factory, I believe. Mazda never supplied any UK car with the lower springs from the factory and as such I doubt you'd have a case in a court (all suspension adjustments were dealer-fit or aftermarket only). If Ford sell a car with the lowering kit from the factory (and it isn't a dealer-fit accessory) then you may have a case for what you suggest.Also can someone confirm if this is true. Was talking to a ford mechanic who was telling me that if a part is supplied by the vehicle manufacturer (as my eibach kit was) it can be considered as an optional extra rather than a modification and there fore cheaper to insure?
I have ordered a 3.5 with Eibachs (picking up this weekend!
) which are a dealer fit option as you know. I stressed these are an extra and dealer fit but Flux's view is that if they are supplied by Mazda then they do not count as an aftermarket optional extra - and nothing changes on your insurance. I was very explicit that they were not factory fitted springs - but would be fitted to the car by Mazda prior to me taking delivery.hornetrider said:
rfn said:
ILOVELAMP said:
Im with ad flux and have an eibach lowering kit on my focus, didnt really make much difference to the price but the after market wheels did.
Also can someone confirm if this is true. Was talking to a ford mechanic who was telling me that if a part is supplied by the vehicle manufacturer (as my eibach kit was) it can be considered as an optional extra rather than a modification and there fore cheaper to insure?
Only if it was supplied from the factory, I believe. Mazda never supplied any UK car with the lower springs from the factory and as such I doubt you'd have a case in a court (all suspension adjustments were dealer-fit or aftermarket only). If Ford sell a car with the lowering kit from the factory (and it isn't a dealer-fit accessory) then you may have a case for what you suggest.Also can someone confirm if this is true. Was talking to a ford mechanic who was telling me that if a part is supplied by the vehicle manufacturer (as my eibach kit was) it can be considered as an optional extra rather than a modification and there fore cheaper to insure?
I have ordered a 3.5 with Eibachs (picking up this weekend!
) which are a dealer fit option as you know. I stressed these are an extra and dealer fit but Flux's view is that if they are supplied by Mazda then they do not count as an aftermarket optional extra - and nothing changes on your insurance. I was very explicit that they were not factory fitted springs - but would be fitted to the car by Mazda prior to me taking delivery.
TheArchitect said:
Looking at MX5s but have just seen the evo magazine reviews of the pre-facelift mk3 and it doesn't look good! anyone able to advise me on whether the review is correct? or whether they had duff cars? or is the mk3 just that way?
I read the same reviews. But the thing with Evo is that it's staffed by frustrated would be racing drivers that drive on the doorhandles all the time. Evo were the only ones to slate the MK3, no one else did.So maybe the MK3.5 is better, if you're on a racetrack and if you're The Stig. But speaking as a normal person who drives a MK3 with enthusiasm, but not in tyre burning race driver full attack mode, I very much doubt you'll notice a problem.
I've read plenty of other reviews by respected journalists (such as ones in Car Magazine) and none of them had a problem with the MK3, only Evo did.
Try it and see what you think for yourself, I did and it's fine.
Ari said:
TheArchitect said:
Looking at MX5s but have just seen the evo magazine reviews of the pre-facelift mk3 and it doesn't look good! anyone able to advise me on whether the review is correct? or whether they had duff cars? or is the mk3 just that way?
I read the same reviews. But the thing with Evo is that it's staffed by frustrated would be racing drivers that drive on the doorhandles all the time. Evo were the only ones to slate the MK3, no one else did.So maybe the MK3.5 is better, if you're on a racetrack and if you're The Stig. But speaking as a normal person who drives a MK3 with enthusiasm, but not in tyre burning race driver full attack mode, I very much doubt you'll notice a problem.
I've read plenty of other reviews by respected journalists (such as ones in Car Magazine) and none of them had a problem with the MK3, only Evo did.
Try it and see what you think for yourself, I did and it's fine.
To the best of my knowledge, the Mk3 was poorly received by the motoring press on the basis that the front and rear ends of the car felt as though they weren't working in harmony together.
The odd handling behaviour was later explained by Mazda UK's decision to put taller springs on the Mk3 in order to satisfy or increase pedestrian safety scores for the MX5.
The problem with fitting those taller springs the Mk3 came with though is that it essentially threw out all the camber, caster and toe (geometry) settings that the car was originally set-up for on the lower sport springs it was meant to arrive with. The result is a poor handling car.
It's another case of accountants and bean counters interfering and compromising a car in the name of 'safety'.
The good news, confirmed by Tony at WIM and other experts is that the problem is easily rectified by simply fitting the 'lowering' springs that the car was designed for in the first place. Tony will tell you himself that once those springs are fitted, the car drops down and the geometry settings all fall in to place, he hardly has to adjust them.
If you remember the Top Gear from years ago when Hammond drove a Mk3 (around a dog track?) he absolutely loved it. That car had the sports springs fitted. The cars evo et al tested didn't.
I realise I've repeated a lot of what people have already mentioned but I'm just posting this as a summary of my understanding on the issue.
I too am seriously considering a Mk3 this year to replace my Mk2.5 so I invested some time finding out whether the handling issues on the Mk3 could be fixed.
The odd handling behaviour was later explained by Mazda UK's decision to put taller springs on the Mk3 in order to satisfy or increase pedestrian safety scores for the MX5.
The problem with fitting those taller springs the Mk3 came with though is that it essentially threw out all the camber, caster and toe (geometry) settings that the car was originally set-up for on the lower sport springs it was meant to arrive with. The result is a poor handling car.
It's another case of accountants and bean counters interfering and compromising a car in the name of 'safety'.
The good news, confirmed by Tony at WIM and other experts is that the problem is easily rectified by simply fitting the 'lowering' springs that the car was designed for in the first place. Tony will tell you himself that once those springs are fitted, the car drops down and the geometry settings all fall in to place, he hardly has to adjust them.
If you remember the Top Gear from years ago when Hammond drove a Mk3 (around a dog track?) he absolutely loved it. That car had the sports springs fitted. The cars evo et al tested didn't.
I realise I've repeated a lot of what people have already mentioned but I'm just posting this as a summary of my understanding on the issue.
I too am seriously considering a Mk3 this year to replace my Mk2.5 so I invested some time finding out whether the handling issues on the Mk3 could be fixed.
treadstone said:
I too am seriously considering a Mk3 this year to replace my Mk2.5 so I invested some time finding out whether the handling issues on the Mk3 could be fixed.
Well worded and completely understandable!Also, go for it you won't regret it! I loved my 2.5 but love my mk3 even more!
Sam - that is interesting - regarding Tony's opinion being that once the correct springs are fitted the alignment is basically sorted. I am having the Eibach springs fitted to mine and was considering an immediate alignment at WIM (or after a month or so of running once the car has settled down).
I'll be doing further investigation and will probably give them a call about the different settings they offer for the car. My Mk1 was set up as 'fast road' but I can't remember the actual alignment settings.
I'll be doing further investigation and will probably give them a call about the different settings they offer for the car. My Mk1 was set up as 'fast road' but I can't remember the actual alignment settings.
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff