RE: Mazda MX-5: Review

[cib24]

wemorgan said:

Was that maybe a type by C&D? If 5-60mph is 6.6 then 0-60mph is surely longer?

http://www.caranddriver.com/mazda/mx-5-miata

"Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.6 sec"

No, think about it.

5-60 mph means you are in first gear and just floor it from low revs to redline.

0-60 mph means you rev the engine to say 4,000 RPM dump the clutch and go so you will be quicker than a rolling start because you are starting higher up in the car's power band.

[otolith]

The 0-60 time is a full bore standing start with a foot of rollout.

[g7jhp]

Iamnotkloot said:

So, how does 25 years of sports car progress look like?

1990 MX5 1.6
115 BHP
940 Kg
125 BHP/ton

2015 MX5 1.5
131 BHP
975 Kg
138 BHP/ton

A sarcastic 'wow' at this point?

I'm sure it's more refined, a little better economy and undoubtedly safer in a crash but it's not the most marvellous progression in 25 years is it?

And the 'pop up lights' version looks cooler.

And with the new MK4 coming in at £18,495 (SE), £19,245 (SE-L), £19,845 (SE-L Nav), £21,845 (Sport), £22,445, some of the low mileage MK1's look good value!

[Emeye]

When did 0-62 in 8.3 seconds become slow?

[Morry10]

Really was not sold on the looks at all initially.

Until I saw the pictures of the silver BBR style one on the OZ's

Would happily take that one

Assuming I could fit in it....it makes mention of 'bigger people need not apply' in the article, does that refer to sturdy types? What about tall people?

Cheers

Morry

[VelredRX8]

The new MX5 appears to have copied some of its styling cues from the much-maligned RX8. Nice little car, but does it still have a market?

[T0MMY]

converted lurker said:

Thrust is only one aspect of a fun car. It really is - it took me years and 535d to fully come to understand that. Loads of thrust is fun. But so is delicacy, balance, slip, gear change, feel, noise, smell. The mx5 has these in abundance relatively.

I honestly used to believe that the people who go on about needing massive amounts of power to make a car fun are basically young and naive, on the basis that I used to be like that as a 20 year old in my 200SX, scoffing at MX5s. It genuinely surprised me to discover that wasn't always the case on here.

Some people just enjoy cars in a different way, they don't really "feel" the handling I guess...frankly anyone that lusts after enormous 2 tonne German luxury saloons with supercar levels of power a la AMG ("and honestly, it handles just like a sportscar too guv") is obviously of a very different mindset to me.

[Jonstar]

I'm actually impressed by the performance stats, 0-100mph in 16.3 seconds is comparable to an EP3 type r. Can't remember being this excited about a new car in a while!

[converted lurker]

It's weird. They rave about a Peugeot 205 1.9 GTi with the same power to weight ratio, less torque and a peaky dyno curve plus one less gear and FWD yet act all ho-Hum about the MX5ND. Why?

I have a 300hp turbo diesel thrust master. It's ok. You can quickly be at 90mph and starting to feel like you are working the machine. At which point you either back off, lose your license or drive like a twunt.

A Lotus Elise without the hassle, tightness and grief is a no brainier, surely?

[T0MMY]

converted lurker said:

It's weird. They rave about a Peugeot 205 1.9 GTi with the same power to weight ratio, less torque and a peaky dyno curve plus one less gear and FWD yet act all ho-Hum about the MX5ND. Why?

I have a 300hp turbo diesel thrust master. It's ok. You can quickly be at 90mph and starting to feel like you are working the machine. At which point you either back off, lose your license or drive like a twunt.

A Lotus Elise without the hassle, tightness and grief is a no brainier, surely?

Haters gonna hate

I guess the enthusiasm for these cars irks people that don't happen to like them. I guess I feel the same about the rise and rise of the SUV so I can hardly talk. Personally I genuinely don't understand how anyone that enjoys driving could throw an MX5 down a twisty road and not like the experience but then they might question how I could fail to enjoy driving something that handles like a plank of wood but shoves me back in my seat every time I press the accelerator.

[Steve_F]

cib24 said:

No, think about it.

5-60 mph means you are in first gear and just floor it from low revs to redline.

0-60 mph means you rev the engine to say 4,000 RPM dump the clutch and go so you will be quicker than a rolling start because you are starting higher up in the car's power band.

What's to stop them having the clutch in and revs high for the 5mph start? It's going to reduce wheel spin, a rolling start will always be at 60 quicker if both starts are as good as possible...

[Steve_F]

cib24 said:

No, think about it.

5-60 mph means you are in first gear and just floor it from low revs to redline.

0-60 mph means you rev the engine to say 4,000 RPM dump the clutch and go so you will be quicker than a rolling start because you are starting higher up in the car's power band.

What's to stop them having the clutch in and revs high for the 5mph start? It's going to reduce wheel spin, a rolling start will always be at 60 quicker if both starts are as good as possible...

[Skyman]

Emeye said:

When did 0-62 in 8.3 seconds become slow?

About ten years ago.

[Gandahar]

Skyman said:

Emeye said:

When did 0-62 in 8.3 seconds become slow?

About ten years ago.

It's not the time it's how fast it feels. Say a Q7 did 0-60 in 6s and the MX5 ND with the top down did it in 7s, then which would feel quicker? If you need a quick car then get a new Civic Type R. That and an MX-5 ND.... nice pairing if you ask me. £50k left of my £100k garage to buy a Honda NSX for the weekends.....

I think I'm just sticking fingers up at people who can look no Furhrer than a certain country to buy their car from

[Skyman]

Gandahar said:

It's not the time it's how fast it feels. Say a Q7 did 0-60 in 6s and the MX5 ND with the top down did it in 7s, then which would feel quicker? If you need a quick car then get a new Civic Type R. That and an MX-5 ND.... nice pairing if you ask me. £50k left of my £100k garage to buy a Honda NSX for the weekends.....

I think I'm just sticking fingers up at people who can look no Furhrer than a certain country to buy their car from

I know, but I have an NC and another of my cars is from Japan and, in stock tune, does less than 3 (I imagine you can guess). The ND looks nice though.

Edited by Skyman on Wednesday 24th June 21:20

[peter450]

MX5's have never been that fast, theirs always been a big aftermarket for these cars for that reason

[Conscript]

swerni said:

It isn't for a family csr
It is for something claiming to be a sports car.

What number would be acceptable for a sports car?

At what number does a small, light, nimble roadster with sporty looks and handling not become worthy of being referred to as a sports car?

[juansolo]

Iamnotkloot said:

So, how does 25 years of sports car progress look like?

1990 MX5 1.6
115 BHP
940 Kg
125 BHP/ton

2015 MX5 1.5
131 BHP
975 Kg
138 BHP/ton

A sarcastic 'wow' at this point?

I'm sure it's more refined, a little better economy and undoubtedly safer in a crash but it's not the most marvellous progression in 25 years is it?

And the 'pop up lights' version looks cooler.

Quite simply when you realise that progress, which has made cars much faster, much grippier and much safer. Has, as a byproduct, numbed them to the point that even with all that power and speed is actually dull to drive. Also all that speed is borderline pointless on modern un-maintained roads with traffic levels and speed enforcement as it is now.

This is why I applaud Toyota(Subaru) and Mazda for making cars that are fun to drive at more sensible speeds. You do not need a big heavy powerful car to have fun. Indeed a light, well balanced, nimble car is more relevant now that it was 20+ years ago when the MX-5 first came out.

I've had two of the things and hoping to swap my Cayman out for a sweet Mk1 MX-5 this year. Last time I did it I went from an Impreza to an MX-5 Sometimes power isn't the answer.

[Itsallicanafford]

swerni said:

It isn't for a family csr
It is for something claiming to be a sports car.

This is plenty of performance, if you put into context on track, you should be achieving approx. 90mph on the straights...this is a lot of speed to manage/ carry through come the first corner, say for example, paddock hill bend at Brans.

[VladD]

swerni said:

Emeye said:

When did 0-62 in 8.3 seconds become slow?

It isn't for a family csr
It is for something claiming to be a sports car.

The Caterham 7 160 isn't exactly fast on paper in performance terms, but it's definitely a sports car. A sports car is more about its ethos than its statistics. Westfield 11?

Edited by VladD on Thursday 25th June 13:03