RE: PH Fleet Update: Mazda Eunos Roadster
Discussion
SimonSaid said:
Itsallicanafford said:
...personally, i think its a shame to change the suspension on a 5, i love the way my Mk1 rides on a standard set-up, makes such as change from modern cars that are 'sporty' as they have bone rattling suspension (try a E90 3 series on run flats, shocking!) sure i will be slower around a track, but not by that much...IMO of course
+1. Every handling 'upgrade' I read about for MX5s involves just stiffening springs and damper rates. Of course this tightens up roadholding and turn-in, but the pay off is bone-shattering ride quality. To my mind, the point of a road-going sports car is that it's a sporty car for the road - not a track car with numberplates. The standard suspension needs full geo-alignment (the MX5 has 4 wheel adjustment) and early examples should have their shocks changed at some point, but only for equivalent items. The chassis is playful and comfortable, the only problem is the scuttle shake, but there are numerous braces (including the one described in the article) that can remedy this. But add too many, and once again, ride suffers.Perhaps I'm unusual here, but what excites me about modification is creating the perfect road car - not going all hardcore rock-springs, nor bling-ed up nonesense - just subtle, sensible mods to round off some of the edges left by mass-production and economies of scale (e.g. the crappy airbox and cheap exhaust) and age (rust, worn shocks et al).
if you want a sporty ride buy a "sports car" ...stop ruining these MX5s
thewheelman said:
Does his have a hard top, low miles & a turbo conversion? I've already turned down £3500 for it. As for limited editions, they did hundreds of different "limited editions", only a few add any value to a standard car.
No it doesn't have a turbo conversion, I didn't realise yours did, so that means you're not comparing apples with apples... No but then not all good condition mark 1 examples are that much money, a friend of mine picked one up last week with 50 odd thousand in the clock, great condition, genuine hard top, FSH and 2 owners from new for about £1800 - mine cost less than that, and my brother paid even less than me for his, all in the last 6 months.
The trouble with '5s is they vary greatly in price, its down to the prospective buyer to know what is and isn't worh the money really.
SimonSaid said:
+1. Every handling 'upgrade' I read about for MX5s involves just stiffening springs and damper rates. Of course this tightens up roadholding and turn-in, but the pay off is bone-shattering ride quality. To my mind, the point of a road-going sports car is that it's a sporty car for the road - not a track car with numberplates. The standard suspension needs full geo-alignment (the MX5 has 4 wheel adjustment) and early examples should have their shocks changed at some point, but only for equivalent items. The chassis is playful and comfortable, the only problem is the scuttle shake, but there are numerous braces (including the one described in the article) that can remedy this. But add too many, and once again, ride suffers.
Perhaps I'm unusual here, but what excites me about modification is creating the perfect road car - not going all hardcore rock-springs, nor bling-ed up nonesense - just subtle, sensible mods to round off some of the edges left by mass-production and economies of scale (e.g. the crappy airbox and cheap exhaust) and age (rust, worn shocks et al).
I'll admit to bias here as I'm the designer (as in I started with a blank CAD screen and somehow at the other end, Dan's dampers came out) of the SportDrive kit, but the ride quality of the kit is at least as good as the OE suspension. One of the big issues with the '5 is that there's remarkably little travel in the rear suspension and stiffening up at that end to keep the suspension out of the bump stops improves ride all round. Unfortunately, by doing that, you change the handling balance and you have to change front suspension too...Perhaps I'm unusual here, but what excites me about modification is creating the perfect road car - not going all hardcore rock-springs, nor bling-ed up nonesense - just subtle, sensible mods to round off some of the edges left by mass-production and economies of scale (e.g. the crappy airbox and cheap exhaust) and age (rust, worn shocks et al).
As for improving torsional rigidity to the detriment of ride quality, might I respectfully suggest that allowing the suspension to do its thing without the need for chassis flex to act as a second undamped spring rate is actually a far better solution than 'we can't stiffen up the chassis too far because it'll merely highlight how limited our cost-factored suspension solution really is'.
Try a properly engineered '5 and then see if your views has validity.
dapearson said:
I posted on MX5Nutz for the first time the other day, introducing myself. I then tried to post that my Larini back box would be up for sale/swap. That thread was immediately deleted - no email, no message, nothing. Confused i then posted a "where did that go" thread, hoping someone would shed light on what i'd done wrong. I was then banned from the forum for a week for breaking the rules.
Despite being over the moon with my '5, i'm going to avoid that website, though i do believe i was somehow on the wrong side of a particularly spikey moderator for some reason and not a true reflection of the whole club!
You need to have >25 posts before you can advertise something for sale. I agree though, it would have been nice for them to have let you know!Despite being over the moon with my '5, i'm going to avoid that website, though i do believe i was somehow on the wrong side of a particularly spikey moderator for some reason and not a true reflection of the whole club!
Edited by dapearson on Monday 12th September 21:56
I like nutz, but I spend most of my time here
StressedDave said:
I'll admit to bias here as I'm the designer (as in I started with a blank CAD screen and somehow at the other end, Dan's dampers came out) of the SportDrive kit, but the ride quality of the kit is at least as good as the OE suspension. One of the big issues with the '5 is that there's remarkably little travel in the rear suspension and stiffening up at that end to keep the suspension out of the bump stops improves ride all round. Unfortunately, by doing that, you change the handling balance and you have to change front suspension too...
As for improving torsional rigidity to the detriment of ride quality, might I respectfully suggest that allowing the suspension to do its thing without the need for chassis flex to act as a second undamped spring rate is actually a far better solution than 'we can't stiffen up the chassis too far because it'll merely highlight how limited our cost-factored suspension solution really is'.
Try a properly engineered '5 and then see if your views has validity.
...i think my point is that i just like it the way it was when it left Hiroshima, warts and all..you soon learn to drive around its deficiencies...but of course there will always be a market for something alittle sharper so well done P5 for the investment in this product...As for improving torsional rigidity to the detriment of ride quality, might I respectfully suggest that allowing the suspension to do its thing without the need for chassis flex to act as a second undamped spring rate is actually a far better solution than 'we can't stiffen up the chassis too far because it'll merely highlight how limited our cost-factored suspension solution really is'.
Try a properly engineered '5 and then see if your views has validity.
SimonSaid said:
Perhaps I'm unusual here, but what excites me about modification is creating the perfect road car - not going all hardcore rock-springs, nor bling-ed up nonesense - just subtle, sensible mods to round off some of the edges left by mass-production and economies of scale (e.g. the crappy airbox and cheap exhaust) and age (rust, worn shocks et al).
While I know what you mean (I've been in Gaz Gold equipped car, pretty firm I must say!) I would suggest having a go in a sportdrive (or Puredrive, from my experience) equipped one. They really are not very hard riding. At Blyton the Instructor even queried if mine was too soft, commenting on the body roll. My dampers are not set that hard (7 out of 15 clicks IIRC) as I use my car to drive to the tracks, and as I live where I do that is often more than 200 miles each way. I really don't find it a chore. Managed Teeside for a track day in June, that was near enough 400 miles each way, on everything from Motorway to bumpy B road. Pretty close to a 1000 mile weekend (well, long weekend anyway!)StressedDave said:
I'll admit to bias here as I'm the designer (as in I started with a blank CAD screen and somehow at the other end, Dan's dampers came out) of the SportDrive kit, but the ride quality of the kit is at least as good as the OE suspension. One of the big issues with the '5 is that there's remarkably little travel in the rear suspension and stiffening up at that end to keep the suspension out of the bump stops improves ride all round. Unfortunately, by doing that, you change the handling balance and you have to change front suspension too...
As for improving torsional rigidity to the detriment of ride quality, might I respectfully suggest that allowing the suspension to do its thing without the need for chassis flex to act as a second undamped spring rate is actually a far better solution than 'we can't stiffen up the chassis too far because it'll merely highlight how limited our cost-factored suspension solution really is'.
Try a properly engineered '5 and then see if your views has validity.
Agreed. I have the old Puredrive setup on my car, ride was vastly improved over the low mileage Bilsteins that were very stiff and crashy (my car was a JDM S-Special). Another vast improvement that highlights how floppy the old mk1's were was a full weld in cage. A stiff chassis certainly helps make the suspension work and work as it should. Maybe a reason why Elise's are so compliant on the road.As for improving torsional rigidity to the detriment of ride quality, might I respectfully suggest that allowing the suspension to do its thing without the need for chassis flex to act as a second undamped spring rate is actually a far better solution than 'we can't stiffen up the chassis too far because it'll merely highlight how limited our cost-factored suspension solution really is'.
Try a properly engineered '5 and then see if your views has validity.
StressedDave said:
I'll admit to bias here as I'm the designer (as in I started with a blank CAD screen and somehow at the other end, Dan's dampers came out) of the SportDrive kit, but the ride quality of the kit is at least as good as the OE suspension. One of the big issues with the '5 is that there's remarkably little travel in the rear suspension and stiffening up at that end to keep the suspension out of the bump stops improves ride all round. Unfortunately, by doing that, you change the handling balance and you have to change front suspension too...
As for improving torsional rigidity to the detriment of ride quality, might I respectfully suggest that allowing the suspension to do its thing without the need for chassis flex to act as a second undamped spring rate is actually a far better solution than 'we can't stiffen up the chassis too far because it'll merely highlight how limited our cost-factored suspension solution really is'.
Try a properly engineered '5 and then see if your views has validity.
Fair enough, I of course have no experience of your kit. My experience is of the factory-fit Bilstein damped variety, which just seemed a pretty incomplete solution to me. I quite agree with regard to the strangeness of thinking of chassis flex as 'extra suspension', it has always seemed odd to me, but I've never heard the notion questioned, I though it was just factored in to monocoque chassis dynamics and design.As for improving torsional rigidity to the detriment of ride quality, might I respectfully suggest that allowing the suspension to do its thing without the need for chassis flex to act as a second undamped spring rate is actually a far better solution than 'we can't stiffen up the chassis too far because it'll merely highlight how limited our cost-factored suspension solution really is'.
Try a properly engineered '5 and then see if your views has validity.
Perhaps its just that what 'wowed' me into buying the '5 in the first place was the handling. Any notion of adjusting it seems like the wrong thing to pay attention to - but having said that, I imagine a bit of time in an example with a comprehensive kit like yours might well elucidate this a little more and I'd come to understand.
Edited by SimonSaid on Tuesday 13th September 16:32
SimonSaid said:
My experience is of the factory-fit Bilstein damped variety, which just seemed a pretty incomplete solution to me.
Do you mean this, you don't like the Bilsteins (as I didn't) or you think they are good? Its just you say you like it stock a few posts ago and Bilsteins are stock on all "sport" models.Herman Toothrot said:
Do you mean this, you don't like the Bilsteins (as I didn't) or you think they are good? Its just you say you like it stock a few posts ago and Bilsteins are stock on all "sport" models.
Not quite correct. I like it stock - the non-Bilstein variety, i.e. most UK MX5s. The Bilstiens were only standard on special editions, mainly imports (R-Ltd, V-Ltd etc). Most UK cars and a lot of the imports do not use Bilstein dampers. Quite a lot of MX5 owners club members have swapped out the Bilsteins, they're not the most popular for general comfort.EFA
Herman Toothrot said:
Do you mean this, you don't like the Bilsteins (as I didn't) or you think they are good? Its just you say you like it stock a few posts ago and Bilsteins are stock on all "sport" models.
The Bilstein kit is a really bad example - they simply don't work properly on roads or proving grounds where there is even minor surface disparities. It's not often that a car forces me to slow down on Millbrook but the fact that the Bilstein-equipped '5 I drove wasn't in contact properly with the concrete all that often certainly limited the joy to be had.BTW, if you thought PureDrive was good, you should try SportDrive. Truly night and day...
The pure drive I thought were perfect for the road. My car is only track now and on track I felt they allowed too much roll - I spoke to Phil about this. Thing is they are like new as my car was always garaged so don't really want to pay to change them - they do the job well enough. I know Phil advised against it but I may go for a stiffer arb, drop it a bit more and use helper springs.
Dave's made the point I think (hi Dave!) but the reason I'm glad I went for the P5 stuff and not the Bilsteins was the fact that it's not out to make the car into a stiffened up grip monster. There's not the power to make that a worthwhile objective. Better to accentuate the positives, give it better bump absorption, more grip and more adjustability without losing that essential feedback that makes the MX-5 such fun to drive.
It's all about the Jinba Ittai!
Speaking of which, I had an interesting conversation with a senior Mazda development engineer on a launch recently who also happens to run a Silver Stone Eunos Roadster like mine back home in Japan. He was saying how body stiffness is a major focus of all they're doing with this new Skyactiv stuff on the CX-5 and other new cars and how this translates into every aspect of the handling. Stiffer platform, better suspension response and tuning, etc. But. In the case of the NA Eunos/MX-5 he said the body flex was actually an integral part of the whole Jinba Ittai thing and once you start messing with it and stiffening it up you lose the magic.
I can see his point and the argument that the base package was so carefully optimised in EVERY area that as soon as you put big wheels/stiff springs/whatever on it you risk ruining it. So, better to keep everything ABSOLUTELY standard. Maybe. I'd love to drive a factory fresh Mk1 to test the theory.
But at the same time my car now drives absolutely brilliantly. And, I believe, is in keeping with the original spirit. Just a bit more so.
It's all about the Jinba Ittai!
Speaking of which, I had an interesting conversation with a senior Mazda development engineer on a launch recently who also happens to run a Silver Stone Eunos Roadster like mine back home in Japan. He was saying how body stiffness is a major focus of all they're doing with this new Skyactiv stuff on the CX-5 and other new cars and how this translates into every aspect of the handling. Stiffer platform, better suspension response and tuning, etc. But. In the case of the NA Eunos/MX-5 he said the body flex was actually an integral part of the whole Jinba Ittai thing and once you start messing with it and stiffening it up you lose the magic.
I can see his point and the argument that the base package was so carefully optimised in EVERY area that as soon as you put big wheels/stiff springs/whatever on it you risk ruining it. So, better to keep everything ABSOLUTELY standard. Maybe. I'd love to drive a factory fresh Mk1 to test the theory.
But at the same time my car now drives absolutely brilliantly. And, I believe, is in keeping with the original spirit. Just a bit more so.
I recently upgraded my '93 MX5 from the stock springs (and KYB AGX shocks -the OEM shocks don't last over 100k miles!) to Phil/Dave's SportsDrive. I also took the opportunity to replace all the suspension bushings with stiffer polybushes.
The car is stiffer, no doubt, but it handles very nicely and is much easier to control on track (4 track days so far). It works great on highways and smooth roads (I did over 1000km/day to go and return from South of France over the Summer). It is now easier to position the car the way I want (more precision, and thus confidence) and it is easier to recover from over enthusastic driving.
I have yet to try to reduce damping to make it more comfy in town or on bad roads, but otherwise it is a superb setup!
PS: my car has more bracing than usual (HD roll bar, FM rails and butterfly, RB braces), and runs on stock 14" wheels with grippy tyres (AO48 or R888), which may explain why it wasn't buttery smooth on potholes ;-)
Well done Dave and Phil!
The car is stiffer, no doubt, but it handles very nicely and is much easier to control on track (4 track days so far). It works great on highways and smooth roads (I did over 1000km/day to go and return from South of France over the Summer). It is now easier to position the car the way I want (more precision, and thus confidence) and it is easier to recover from over enthusastic driving.
I have yet to try to reduce damping to make it more comfy in town or on bad roads, but otherwise it is a superb setup!
PS: my car has more bracing than usual (HD roll bar, FM rails and butterfly, RB braces), and runs on stock 14" wheels with grippy tyres (AO48 or R888), which may explain why it wasn't buttery smooth on potholes ;-)
Well done Dave and Phil!
Herman Toothrot said:
The pure drive I thought were perfect for the road. My car is only track now and on track I felt they allowed too much roll - I spoke to Phil about this. Thing is they are like new as my car was always garaged so don't really want to pay to change them - they do the job well enough. I know Phil advised against it but I may go for a stiffer arb, drop it a bit more and use helper springs.
There's nowt wrong with roll... the issues you may have with what you're proposing are that:1. Going for a stiffer ARB means that the amount of roll damping relative to the roll stiffness you now have goes down. So often you get worse roll control than you had before the swap
2. Unless you know what you're doing, you won't get better handling as a result - I know for a fact that your current combination will pull 1g lateral (unaided by camber) while running on Yokohama S-306 185/60 R14, so the issue may be more to do with how you want to drive the car rather than the capabilities of the car. I recommend training long before I recommend fiddling further with the handling balance.
3. More ARB means more interconnection between the wheels on either side of the car. If you don't know what the term 'head-toss' is, you'll probably soon find out. I've driven PD on proving ground with stiffer ARBs - the handling was significantly worse because the increased interconnection would lift the inside rear wheel just at the point where you were trying to get the power down.
4. While lowering the car is a good thing from a load transfer point of view, lower c of g = less load transfer = less grip deterioration, the analysis I've done suggests that the geometric load transfer (i.e. that transmitted along the suspension linkages and is undamped) goes up, so you actually get less control as a result.
Edited by StressedDave on Wednesday 14th September 17:22
SimonSaid said:
Incidentally, this seems like a good thread to ask - any of you lot going to the big MX5 national rally this weekend?
I'm in the process of making a 'shopping list' for the stalls there...
...that would be good...however, with a 1 year old, weekend jollies are on hold, according to the wife...have a good one...I'm in the process of making a 'shopping list' for the stalls there...
StressedDave said:
There's nowt wrong with roll... the issues you may have with what you're proposing are that:
1. Going for a stiffer ARB means that the amount of roll damping relative to the roll stiffness you now have goes down. So often you get worse roll control than you had before the swap
2. Unless you know what you're doing, you won't get better handling as a result - I know for a fact that your current combination will pull 1g lateral (unaided by camber) while running on Yokohama S-306 185/60 R14, so the issue may be more to do with how you want to drive the car rather than the capabilities of the car. I recommend training long before I recommend fiddling further with the handling balance.
3. More ARB means more interconnection between the wheels on either side of the car. If you don't know what the term 'head-toss' is, you'll probably soon find out. I've driven PD on proving ground with stiffer ARBs - the handling was significantly worse because the increased interconnection would lift the inside rear wheel just at the point where you were trying to get the power down.
4. While lowering the car is a good thing from a load transfer point of view, lower c of g = less load transfer = less grip deterioration, the analysis I've done suggests that the geometric load transfer (i.e. that transmitted along the suspension linkages and is undamped) goes up, so you actually get less control as a result.
Well increased grip at the price of progession due to body roll is how I view the Puredrives (P.S. Wheels in Motion Fast road / track geo). I know someone else didn't keep theirs for long for the same reason. So how have you improved the Sport Drives over the Pure Drives? 1. Going for a stiffer ARB means that the amount of roll damping relative to the roll stiffness you now have goes down. So often you get worse roll control than you had before the swap
2. Unless you know what you're doing, you won't get better handling as a result - I know for a fact that your current combination will pull 1g lateral (unaided by camber) while running on Yokohama S-306 185/60 R14, so the issue may be more to do with how you want to drive the car rather than the capabilities of the car. I recommend training long before I recommend fiddling further with the handling balance.
3. More ARB means more interconnection between the wheels on either side of the car. If you don't know what the term 'head-toss' is, you'll probably soon find out. I've driven PD on proving ground with stiffer ARBs - the handling was significantly worse because the increased interconnection would lift the inside rear wheel just at the point where you were trying to get the power down.
4. While lowering the car is a good thing from a load transfer point of view, lower c of g = less load transfer = less grip deterioration, the analysis I've done suggests that the geometric load transfer (i.e. that transmitted along the suspension linkages and is undamped) goes up, so you actually get less control as a result.
Edited by StressedDave on Wednesday 14th September 17:22
I'd describe my MX5 with Pure drives as snappier after breaking traction than a mk3 MR2, Exige or VX220. I guess they all have superior chassis to start with, however they are normally described as snappy and the MX5 dosile, which it was on Bilsteins (just horribly crashy and rubbish on bumpy stuff) and KYBs / Eibachs.
Edited by Herman Toothrot on Wednesday 14th September 23:32
Herman Toothrot said:
Well increased grip at the price of progession due to body roll is how I view the Puredrives (P.S. Wheels in Motion Fast road / track geo). I know someone else didn't keep theirs for long for the same reason.
Therein lies the problem - the issue is that the changed alignment settings aren't compatible with the amount of suspension travel that you're using. It's a common issue that tends to be coupled with 'well, you need stiffer springs then' arguments. With standard geometry settings, this snappiness simply doesn't occur. Or to put it a different way, you don't need anything other than OE settings to get the kit to work properly. Without wishing to denigrate Tony's work in any way, my experience of many calibrations is that while they may improve things away from the limit, they often make things worse at the limit that can only be cured by fitting stiffer springs and ARBs, but if you're going to do that, you might as well buy a go-kart.Herman Toothrot said:
So how have you improved the Sport Drives over the Pure Drives?
1. Changed from twin-tube (as per Gaz and Koni to name just a couple) to monotube (like Bilstein). It's a big advantage in terms of damper response on uneven stuff and on-track.2. Large piston rod and high gas pressure to take some of the load support out of the spring and into the damper.
3. Completely different valving, especially in low speed bump to better control the contact patch loads. One of the things that drove the change was that using someone else's design, you get what they think you need. This way I get to give you what I want.
4. Adjuster on the top so it's not out in the mud and corruption and liable to stick.
5. Hard anodised aluminium bodies for corrosion resistance.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff