Mazda MX-5 Mk1 or Mk3

[bay1234]

Hi all,

I am thinking about buying a Mk1 or Mk2 Mazda MX-5 as a weekend toy, what should I look put for and what are the engines/transmission/colours to avoid? The Mrs would have to like it too

Thanks in advance

[Pints]

The knowledgeable crew will be along shortly but you can be sure rusty sills will be mentioned as areas of concern.

[MX-5 Lazza]

The only thing to avoid really is the post 95 Mk1 1.6 as that was changed to give it only 88bhp. Even then they are not really as bad as that suggests as most seem to make a fair bit more than that when tested (nearer to 100bhp) and with more mid-range torque.
Both 5-speed and 6-speed are very good gearboxes. 6-speed will only be available on some JDM Mk2 models and some UK Mk2.5 (2001+) models. Auto is supposed to be pretty good but I've never driven one myself.
Colours? Well I don't think there are any to avoid as it's all a matter of taste. I don't like the "Racing Bronze" much myself but some people really like it. There isn't really a "bad" colour choice.

[Simbu]

You might want to consider whether you want an LSD or not. They will improve handling when you're pushing on, but it will considerably limit your choice of cars. As a mk2 owner and having spent time in a mk1, the mk2 is a nicer place to sit but is also heavier and arguably a less pure driving experience. I think all mk2s came with PAS whereas its a mixed bag with the mk1s.

Rust is the big thing to watch for though. Sills and wheelarches.

[MX-5 Lazza]

Mk1 isn't a more pure driving experience than Mk2. Mk2 is more refined so not as harsh in ride/vibration/handling etc. A lot of people confuse road harshness with feedback. Just because you can feel more through the steering doesn't mean there is more feedback. The amount of real road feedback is no different. They have the same basic chassis but Mk2 is stiffer which allows it to have better suspension without losing handling/grip, just tuning out a lot of the harshness.
It would be more true to say the Mk1 is a more raw driving experience than Mk2.

The weight difference is also exaggerated. An early Mk2 is pretty much the same weight as a late Mk1. A very early Mk1 can be up to 100Kg lighter but only if it's a very base model (i.e. no AC, EW, leather etc.) and then it's mostly only due to having less chassis braces and no side-impact protection beams. Most people add the chassis braces so much of that weight difference would be negated.

PAS is a good thing to have. It's well weighted and the car was designed from the start to have it.

[bay1234]

Thank you to everyone for the advice, I will keep an eye out and if one takes my fancy then I will be getting it! I thought rust would be a thing to watch out for, and as it is just a weekend toy, I wouldn't be too concerned about the ride quality etc. I heard they done a (rare)MX-5 RS? Is this true?

[Deerfoot]

bay1234 said:

I heard they done a (rare)MX-5 RS? Is this true?

This one looks in great condition apart from the fact it hasn`t got the RS Recaro seats anymore.

http://www.mx5nutz.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1...

[g40steve]

What's your budget as a mk3 will be at least 5.5k if not more.

[bay1234]

My total budget is about 3.5-4k including the car and anything modifications I want to do to it

That RS was sweet as, but it is now sold

[Mazdamender]

Mk 1 everytime, they don't rot as fast as the Mk 2/2.5, everything is made of cheese, but if you are set on a Mk 2 go for the 1.6 version as the 1.8 uses oil, if it's a 2.5 you find then 1.6 is best, but you have the 1.8 VVT engine also.
But as said the Mk 1 is your best option and i would go for a early 91 to late 93 long nose crank 1.6 import.
1.8 can eats coil packs(4 pin)CAS fail a lot and can bring on ECU fail.
M-m

[bay1234]

Thank you for the advice! I am now on a hunt for a Mk1 1.6 are there any improvements I couldmake to a Mk1?
Thanks in advance