RE: BBR Mazda MX-5 Super 200: Review
Discussion
CABC said:
Looks wise I find the ND very resolved in the flesh. Bear in mind that many new cars, not just sporty ones, have very aggressive, 'extrovert' body work. In that context it's quite restrained really.
Agreed. On the road it looks crisp and modern, rather than pumped up and ridiculous, or painfully bubbly like the NC.Hi all,
Have a few questions that some of you may be able to help with. I have been playing with the idea of a BBR tuned NC or ND for a little while now.
1) ND engine - A few of you have mentioned that the 1.5 would/could be a better engine in some respects that the 2.0. I currently on my second Suzuki Ignis sport because of how much fun it is to drive. I have noticeably more powerful and expensive cars before but find the little Suzuki far more involving and fun. Effectively I consider it a 10/10ths car and this seems quite rare. Based on this would you suggest the 1.5 over the 2.0? On paper it sounds a bit silly to opt for the lower powered engine and then pay a relatively considerable sum to upgrade the power. But theoretically if the engine is more engaging and fun to use I can see the logic theoretically. Would you consider the 1.5 more of a 10/10ths car than the 2.0?
2) Steering Feel - I am yet to drive an ND or and NC I confess. The main concern about the ND is the electric steering. Steering feel as you know can have so much impact on how engaging the car is to drive. Would you say the ND is a noticeable step down in this respect over the NC?
3) The roof - The NC has the option of a metal folding roof, which adds weight, but helps from a weather shielding / sound deadening perspective if you intend to use the car all year round as I would. It would also be easier to maintain from my experience. Has anyone heard if they ever intend to provide a folding metal roof on the ND?
Have a few questions that some of you may be able to help with. I have been playing with the idea of a BBR tuned NC or ND for a little while now.
1) ND engine - A few of you have mentioned that the 1.5 would/could be a better engine in some respects that the 2.0. I currently on my second Suzuki Ignis sport because of how much fun it is to drive. I have noticeably more powerful and expensive cars before but find the little Suzuki far more involving and fun. Effectively I consider it a 10/10ths car and this seems quite rare. Based on this would you suggest the 1.5 over the 2.0? On paper it sounds a bit silly to opt for the lower powered engine and then pay a relatively considerable sum to upgrade the power. But theoretically if the engine is more engaging and fun to use I can see the logic theoretically. Would you consider the 1.5 more of a 10/10ths car than the 2.0?
2) Steering Feel - I am yet to drive an ND or and NC I confess. The main concern about the ND is the electric steering. Steering feel as you know can have so much impact on how engaging the car is to drive. Would you say the ND is a noticeable step down in this respect over the NC?
3) The roof - The NC has the option of a metal folding roof, which adds weight, but helps from a weather shielding / sound deadening perspective if you intend to use the car all year round as I would. It would also be easier to maintain from my experience. Has anyone heard if they ever intend to provide a folding metal roof on the ND?
Can't comment on #1 because I've not driven the 1.5, but:
2) Stepping straight out of my NA into an ND the steering was a bit numb, but not disruptively so. It was a good ratio and weight, and felt nicely matched to the chassis, but the detail feedback had obviously been smoothed out. I think on an every day car I would be quite happy with it, perhaps I'd think twice if I was buying an ND to be a weekend/high days toy (unlikely I know).
3) No full folding roof in the works as far as I know, but they've gone with a kind of Targa version: https://www.mazda.co.uk/cars/coming-soon-mazda-mx-...
2) Stepping straight out of my NA into an ND the steering was a bit numb, but not disruptively so. It was a good ratio and weight, and felt nicely matched to the chassis, but the detail feedback had obviously been smoothed out. I think on an every day car I would be quite happy with it, perhaps I'd think twice if I was buying an ND to be a weekend/high days toy (unlikely I know).
3) No full folding roof in the works as far as I know, but they've gone with a kind of Targa version: https://www.mazda.co.uk/cars/coming-soon-mazda-mx-...
I suspect 1.5 would be better (as you clearly understand 10/10 fun). Lighter revs more freely. Lack of lsd less important on public road.
The NC tin roof is a composite and probably not that heavy. The CCs only came with AC as std so you have to factor that in to comparative weights.
The NC tin roof is a composite and probably not that heavy. The CCs only came with AC as std so you have to factor that in to comparative weights.
Steering feel - please remember tat the bar is very high. All MX5-s are 'very good'. Yes the ND has lost a touch of feel but put in cotext its still in a whole different park to most modern cars. Tyres, pressures and geo make a big difference too.
There are of course always cars that are better (lotus, some older Porsche, and BMW, Peugeot etc)
Hardtop - the NC version is plastic, not metal. It is not that heavy, but its also not really any quieter. Fabric roof is quicker too.
ND RF coupe out next year, will be similar story. Looks great too. Main benefit is number of 1 or 2 year old cars coming onto 2nd hand market, to be honest.
Engine - the 1.5 is 'sweeter' but Id still go for the 2.0. Like the steering feel, you have to put it in context. I also thought the 2.0 sounded really good and rorty too.
LSD only available on 2.0.
IMO having owned 3 MX-5s anddriven all variants, it IS important on the road. Not for doing dorfito on the way to towkr, it just makes the drive out of junctions better, you can definitely tell. Much more noticeable than in things like big BMWs etc. Contrast with my old Boxster where it would be pointless as the amount of traction and balance of the aar means there would be little benefit.
There are of course always cars that are better (lotus, some older Porsche, and BMW, Peugeot etc)
Hardtop - the NC version is plastic, not metal. It is not that heavy, but its also not really any quieter. Fabric roof is quicker too.
ND RF coupe out next year, will be similar story. Looks great too. Main benefit is number of 1 or 2 year old cars coming onto 2nd hand market, to be honest.
Engine - the 1.5 is 'sweeter' but Id still go for the 2.0. Like the steering feel, you have to put it in context. I also thought the 2.0 sounded really good and rorty too.
LSD only available on 2.0.
IMO having owned 3 MX-5s anddriven all variants, it IS important on the road. Not for doing dorfito on the way to towkr, it just makes the drive out of junctions better, you can definitely tell. Much more noticeable than in things like big BMWs etc. Contrast with my old Boxster where it would be pointless as the amount of traction and balance of the aar means there would be little benefit.
GrahamNorton said:
Hi all,
Have a few questions that some of you may be able to help with. I have been playing with the idea of a BBR tuned NC or ND for a little while now.
1) ND engine - A few of you have mentioned that the 1.5 would/could be a better engine in some respects that the 2.0. I currently on my second Suzuki Ignis sport because of how much fun it is to drive. I have noticeably more powerful and expensive cars before but find the little Suzuki far more involving and fun. Effectively I consider it a 10/10ths car and this seems quite rare. Based on this would you suggest the 1.5 over the 2.0? On paper it sounds a bit silly to opt for the lower powered engine and then pay a relatively considerable sum to upgrade the power. But theoretically if the engine is more engaging and fun to use I can see the logic theoretically. Would you consider the 1.5 more of a 10/10ths car than the 2.0?
2) Steering Feel - I am yet to drive an ND or and NC I confess. The main concern about the ND is the electric steering. Steering feel as you know can have so much impact on how engaging the car is to drive. Would you say the ND is a noticeable step down in this respect over the NC?
3) The roof - The NC has the option of a metal folding roof, which adds weight, but helps from a weather shielding / sound deadening perspective if you intend to use the car all year round as I would. It would also be easier to maintain from my experience. Has anyone heard if they ever intend to provide a folding metal roof on the ND?
Steering feel/weight is not a 'stand out' feature of the ND in my opinion, all other control weights are exceptional !!Have a few questions that some of you may be able to help with. I have been playing with the idea of a BBR tuned NC or ND for a little while now.
1) ND engine - A few of you have mentioned that the 1.5 would/could be a better engine in some respects that the 2.0. I currently on my second Suzuki Ignis sport because of how much fun it is to drive. I have noticeably more powerful and expensive cars before but find the little Suzuki far more involving and fun. Effectively I consider it a 10/10ths car and this seems quite rare. Based on this would you suggest the 1.5 over the 2.0? On paper it sounds a bit silly to opt for the lower powered engine and then pay a relatively considerable sum to upgrade the power. But theoretically if the engine is more engaging and fun to use I can see the logic theoretically. Would you consider the 1.5 more of a 10/10ths car than the 2.0?
2) Steering Feel - I am yet to drive an ND or and NC I confess. The main concern about the ND is the electric steering. Steering feel as you know can have so much impact on how engaging the car is to drive. Would you say the ND is a noticeable step down in this respect over the NC?
3) The roof - The NC has the option of a metal folding roof, which adds weight, but helps from a weather shielding / sound deadening perspective if you intend to use the car all year round as I would. It would also be easier to maintain from my experience. Has anyone heard if they ever intend to provide a folding metal roof on the ND?
If this is a 'deal breaker' for you I'd probably buy something else, try it and see what you think. That said I've come from 16 yrs of Caterham ownership and i'm more than happy to live with it for the many other attributes of the car which are really quite special, it's still huge fun to drive and the steering response isn't terrible or anything, just not as good as the best that's all.
Not driven the 1.5 but the BBR 2.0ltr feels really good to me so far, personally I couldn't see any compelling reasons to go for the smaller engine if you are going to get BBR to massage it !!
snotrag said:
LSD only available on 2.0.
IMO having owned 3 MX-5s anddriven all variants, it IS important on the road. Not for doing dorfito on the way to towkr, it just makes the drive out of junctions better, you can definitely tell. Much more noticeable than in things like big BMWs etc. Contrast with my old Boxster where it would be pointless as the amount of traction and balance of the aar means there would be little benefit.
I'd agree with this, my NA feels very much like it needs one and it's 70hp down on the BBR! In the wet it's especially noticeable.IMO having owned 3 MX-5s anddriven all variants, it IS important on the road. Not for doing dorfito on the way to towkr, it just makes the drive out of junctions better, you can definitely tell. Much more noticeable than in things like big BMWs etc. Contrast with my old Boxster where it would be pointless as the amount of traction and balance of the aar means there would be little benefit.
I took the ND 2.0 out for an afternoon - lovely dealership experience - and I am convinced that I did get the LSD working in the wet coming out of uphill T Junctions (well, one that I came out of 4 times on a favourite bit of road). The same junction early in my BMW 535d was a mess of wheelspin with the ESP/Traction system off off.
I disagree that it is far to compare a new car price with a used car price. I can’t get a new Boxster for less than >£40k. By that logic why get a new Boxster when you can get used Evora? Why get a new Evora when you can get a used Ferrari?
The magic of depreciation will soon mean a BBR200 MX5 mk4 will be a realistic sub £16k proposition which will then have a rather pleasing depreciation curve of no more than £3k a year and an annual service, insurance and maintenance cost of under a grand a year. Those are the sort of numbers that would work for me for what would be an indulgent toy. I already have a V8, Straight 6, motorbike and tractor - this is just a fun day B-road thrash machine, I don’t want to throw big bucks at it and I don’t want it to be an unreliable hassle dripping oil on the garage floor either.
Used Porsches are all well and good but so many of them had chocolate engines and a propensity to deliver up expensive failures and high running costs if all went well.
Its NOT the speed we want - its the sensation of speed. Its not the technology we want - its the man/machine interface tactility.
I disagree that it is far to compare a new car price with a used car price. I can’t get a new Boxster for less than >£40k. By that logic why get a new Boxster when you can get used Evora? Why get a new Evora when you can get a used Ferrari?
The magic of depreciation will soon mean a BBR200 MX5 mk4 will be a realistic sub £16k proposition which will then have a rather pleasing depreciation curve of no more than £3k a year and an annual service, insurance and maintenance cost of under a grand a year. Those are the sort of numbers that would work for me for what would be an indulgent toy. I already have a V8, Straight 6, motorbike and tractor - this is just a fun day B-road thrash machine, I don’t want to throw big bucks at it and I don’t want it to be an unreliable hassle dripping oil on the garage floor either.
Used Porsches are all well and good but so many of them had chocolate engines and a propensity to deliver up expensive failures and high running costs if all went well.
Its NOT the speed we want - its the sensation of speed. Its not the technology we want - its the man/machine interface tactility.
Sorry if i'm being a bit slow here, but why are there 3 different traces on the graph? Or put another way, what are the three?
http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/34926/super202-...
http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/34926/super202-...
227bhp said:
Sorry if i'm being a bit slow here, but why are there 3 different traces on the graph? Or put another way, what are the three?
http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/34926/super202-...
I think it's the standard car, car with the Super 200 pack, then the Super 200 + exhaust etc as mentioned in the original article. http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/34926/super202-...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The new vs used debate is down to personal choice, the harder decision here (for me anyway) is what else is there out there like the Super 200 BBR MX5 ? I can't think of anything !! assuming smaller and lighter than a Boxter but not as impractical as superlights like the Elise.Just to add that you don't need to spend £30k either ... I didn't !!
Simon Owen said:
...the harder decision here (for me anyway) is what else is there out there like the Super 200 BBR MX5 ? I can't think of anything !! assuming smaller and lighter than a Boxter but not as impractical as superlights like the Elise.
There is another option... The Mk3 MX-5.Now I've also driven a lot of these and my parent own one, and I agree with most that its not the 'best' MX-5.
However - they are still bloody brilliant to drive, there is tonnes of them to buy ranging from £3k to £15k.
And BBR do a very comprehensive set of upgrades for this car too from mile remap, through cams, exhausts etc up to full turbo kits.
They are still doing lots of conversions on these cars aswell so very much a 'current' product.
I wish a car manufacturer would have a go at a cross-plane crank in an inline 4. Those Yamaha R1s sound incredible. That sort of noise in a 200hp/ton MX5 or Elise would make them pretty compelling.
In any case, I really like this MX5/BBR package.
In any case, I really like this MX5/BBR package.
Edited by braddo on Wednesday 14th September 21:11
Video of the Super 200 doing 0-60 runs. Terrible music but faster than I expected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg0BHiqHvoM&sp...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg0BHiqHvoM&sp...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff