RE: Mazda MX-5: Review
Discussion
Erm not sure, As Hammond put the looks are very subjective. Theres a hint of Gran turismo when viewing the front bumper side on.
It's probably a good motor though it's just a shame that car design in the last 5-7 years seems to of been handled by marvin the depressed robot. A recurring trait that seems to be making cars ever more polar especially when it comes to looks.
It's probably a good motor though it's just a shame that car design in the last 5-7 years seems to of been handled by marvin the depressed robot. A recurring trait that seems to be making cars ever more polar especially when it comes to looks.
Steve_F said:
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...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.
Itsallicanafford said:
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.
very well put. It is true that there is a lot of skill to arriving at Paddock at 125 then braking late to lose just enough speed and turn in at highest speed possible. Such skill is rarely seen on a track day, rather the fast cars brake way too early and just eat pads. or hit the gravel, but mostly brake too early as it's hard to late brake from higher speeds obviously. all the gear no idea etc.
juansolo said:
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.
Agree. Cars have got faster over the last 25 years, but they've also added weight, made them less fun to drive.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.You kind buy cars like the original 205 GTI or MX5 new anymore because they're illegal to make. Good original cars are great fun and at £5k what's not to like saving £15-17k on a new car - they also comes with character!
Robert Elise said:
very well put.
It is true that there is a lot of skill to arriving at Paddock at 125 then braking late to lose just enough speed and turn in at highest speed possible. Such skill is rarely seen on a track day, rather the fast cars brake way too early and just eat pads. or hit the gravel, but mostly brake too early as it's hard to late brake from higher speeds obviously. all the gear no idea etc.
So true. I'm sure I'll get some stick for saying this but my MX5 was always one of the least powerful cars at a trackday (if not the least) but I don't think it was ever even in the bottom 50% for lap times. I wonder how many of the people who dismiss MX5s would struggle to keep up with one in their far more powerful car? Not that an MX5 is capable of amazing laptimes, more that I rather unkindly assume the type of person that couldn't appreciate why they're good probably isn't the type of person that really pushes cars hard enough to understand why they are.It is true that there is a lot of skill to arriving at Paddock at 125 then braking late to lose just enough speed and turn in at highest speed possible. Such skill is rarely seen on a track day, rather the fast cars brake way too early and just eat pads. or hit the gravel, but mostly brake too early as it's hard to late brake from higher speeds obviously. all the gear no idea etc.
T0MMY said:
Robert Elise said:
very well put.
It is true that there is a lot of skill to arriving at Paddock at 125 then braking late to lose just enough speed and turn in at highest speed possible. Such skill is rarely seen on a track day, rather the fast cars brake way too early and just eat pads. or hit the gravel, but mostly brake too early as it's hard to late brake from higher speeds obviously. all the gear no idea etc.
So true. I'm sure I'll get some stick for saying this but my MX5 was always one of the least powerful cars at a trackday (if not the least) but I don't think it was ever even in the bottom 50% for lap times. I wonder how many of the people who dismiss MX5s would struggle to keep up with one in their far more powerful car? Not that an MX5 is capable of amazing laptimes, more that I rather unkindly assume the type of person that couldn't appreciate why they're good probably isn't the type of person that really pushes cars hard enough to understand why they are.It is true that there is a lot of skill to arriving at Paddock at 125 then braking late to lose just enough speed and turn in at highest speed possible. Such skill is rarely seen on a track day, rather the fast cars brake way too early and just eat pads. or hit the gravel, but mostly brake too early as it's hard to late brake from higher speeds obviously. all the gear no idea etc.
People having forgotten the small light weight/good handling cars are far more enjoyable than high power but heavy car. I applaud mazda for the new mk4.
Looking forward to seeing the new MX5 at Goodwood this weekend.
I did 150 miles on track at Abingdon in my old Mk1 S-Spec with a mighty 115 bhp and had about the most fun I've ever had punting a car round a circuit. Comically easy to oversteer and catch, it was adjustable and pure. Who cares about straight-line figures?
Same reason I now have a Mk3 MR2 with a 1.8l hairdryer of an engine along with a daily driver with a 6.0l Corvette V8. Both are a complete hoot to drive, but it's the 138 bhp MR2 that's been on track this year.
I did 150 miles on track at Abingdon in my old Mk1 S-Spec with a mighty 115 bhp and had about the most fun I've ever had punting a car round a circuit. Comically easy to oversteer and catch, it was adjustable and pure. Who cares about straight-line figures?
Same reason I now have a Mk3 MR2 with a 1.8l hairdryer of an engine along with a daily driver with a 6.0l Corvette V8. Both are a complete hoot to drive, but it's the 138 bhp MR2 that's been on track this year.
T0MMY said:
swerni said:
It isn't for a family csr
It is for something claiming to be a sports car.
Sadly it is exactly this kind of mentality that is making cars less and less fun. More power and more grip = more sporty right? It is for something claiming to be a sports car.
MajorMantra said:
juansolo said:
I've had two of the things and hoping to swap my Cayman out for a sweet Mk1 MX-5 this year.
Much as I love my NA, I reckon if someone offered me a Cayman in exchange for it I'd have trouble saying no. Gad-Westy said:
You could argue that the fact that it weights barely any more, has better power to weight, is more economical, more refined, safer etc and meets modern legislation shows dramatic progress. It's also pretty cheap when you consider the original cost £15k. I can't think of many other models that have managed that over a 25 year period.
Well the obvious one is the 911.1990
964 Carrera C2
247 BHP
1375 Kg
184 BHP/tonne
c $60k in 1990 so about $133k today (in dollars as I couldn't find it in £)
2015
991 Carrera C2
345 BHP
1380 Kg
256 BHP/tonne
c $84k
Weird how cheap the current model looks on that comparison?
I guess I'm arguing with myself a bit as power isn't everything and I applaud Mazda for doing this car. Just a pity it doesn't look 'cleaner'.
MG CHRIS said:
Agreed on the mx5 on track days its funny seeing big powerful cars being blown into the waters by the nimble mx5. Remove the body and put the running gear into a mx5 an even with just the 1.8 130bhp engine not much will be able to keep up.
People having forgotten the small light weight/good handling cars are far more enjoyable than high power but heavy car. I applaud mazda for the new mk4.
Hmmm, well I have a Mk1 MX5 and a E39 M5 and, much as I love the former, the M5 is far more enjoyable and that's all high power and heavy weight. They are both fun but the one that makes me laugh out loud is the Beemer (muffler delete I should add).People having forgotten the small light weight/good handling cars are far more enjoyable than high power but heavy car. I applaud mazda for the new mk4.
A great looking car, they will sell bucket loads of them. Comparing it to a fiesta ST is daft, they are very different in every way.
For a cheaper rag top you can't go wrong.
I only hope they have sorted the quality of the paint and undersealing for the UK roads
I would love to own one, and would part with my Mk3 to do so
For a cheaper rag top you can't go wrong.
I only hope they have sorted the quality of the paint and undersealing for the UK roads
I would love to own one, and would part with my Mk3 to do so
swerni said:
VladD said:
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.
Edited by VladD on Thursday 25th June 13:03
I had a k series super sport 1.4 back in 94 and that would do 60 in 6 seconds,,was very basic and could out handle anything .
How is that even comparible to an mx5?
According to Tommmy an MX5 is good because it's slow with s
te gripT0MMY said:
Sadly it is exactly this kind of mentality that is making cars less and less fun. More power and more grip = more sporty right?
Maybe an escort van is the ultimate sports car ?Now, if you're a driving legend like Monkey Harris (and you may well be talented yourself) then I can see that the MX5 may be too easy to drive and thus not provide enough of a challenge and entertainment. He can probably throw a Boxster round better than I can my MX5. For the majority of people though, the MX5 ticks a lot of boxes. You're clearly not one of those people, and that's fair enough, we're all different.
As for the s
te grip thing.1) s
te grip + ste balance = ste car.2) s
te grip + Good balance = Fun car.3) Good grip + s
te balance = Family car.4) Good grip + Good balance = Fast car.
The MX5 is 2. The Boxster is 4. Different ethos.
Edited by VladD on Friday 26th June 12:58
VladD said:
As for the ste grip thing.
1) ste grip + ste balance = ste car.
2) ste grip + Good balance = Fun car.
3) Good grip + ste balance = Family car.
4) Good grip + Good balance = Fast car.
The MX5 is 2. The Boxster is 4. Different ethos.
That sums it up very well. Although 4 could still be a fun car, but not as easy to access the fun on the Queen's highway. te grip thing.1) s
te grip + ste balance = ste car.2) s
te grip + Good balance = Fun car.3) Good grip + s
te balance = Family car.4) Good grip + Good balance = Fast car.
The MX5 is 2. The Boxster is 4. Different ethos.
swerni said:
According to Tommmy an MX5 is good because it's slow with ste grip
No, I said loads of power and loads of grip don't necessarily equal loads of fun. That's not the same thing as saying no power and no grip does equal loads of fun te grip
My point is that most enthusiastic drivers find MX5s fun to drive despite not being especially quick as they can appreciate the handling balance. That to me is far more important than how fast a car accelerates...speed is vaguely (and briefly, until you get used to it) amusing but for a weekend toy I would FAR rather have a slow car with involving handling than a fast car with dull handling. Nice to have both but actually I don't much care about speed, down to a point at least; handling is massively more important to me.
It's a question of where you find your fun, in the corners or on the straights. I find it mind boggling that anyone would say the latter but presumably that's the case.
Edited by T0MMY on Friday 26th June 17:56
swerni said:
No you didn't
You exact words were
Still not sure where you're coming from here Swerni, are you not taking that to mean that I don't think more power and more grip by default makes a car more sporty (by which I mean more fun)? Let me rephrase then for your benefit; saying a car is not more sporty just for having more grip and more power is not the same thing as saying a car becomes sportier by having less power and less grip. Doesn't seem that hard to understand to me, in fact I presume you do understand, you're just arguing for the sake of it because of your irrational hatred of MX5s You exact words were
T0MMY said:
Sadly it is exactly this kind of mentality that is making cars less and less fun. More power and more grip = more sporty right?
You should really take that as a compliment too.wemorgan said:
MajorMantra said:
juansolo said:
I've had two of the things and hoping to swap my Cayman out for a sweet Mk1 MX-5 this year.
Much as I love my NA, I reckon if someone offered me a Cayman in exchange for it I'd have trouble saying no. FWIW, I've had the Cayman now 5 years and it's really, really good. The telling thing though is when I drive my brothers Mk1 (for it is the car in question), Power and engine noise aside, I prefer the MX-5 to drive on the road. I took it for a run and I was enjoying playing with it's limits. I started feeling a little guilty about that (as had I been doing that in the Cayman I'd have been rattling along at a fair old rate), looked down and I was barely doing 60mph. That was the point I realised the genius of it. It's 185 14" tyres, it's seemingly guttless engine that you have to keep right up there in the revs to make any progress at all. The controls being perfect. Just the balance of it.
You're not wrong that the Cayman is objectively a better car in every respect. But even with the little engine and little wheels on mine, to get to it's limits on the road it's license losing stuff. On the big sweeping roads in Scotland on a tour we did recently the Cayman was perfectly suited. The MX-5 would have been out of it's depth. Conversely the MX-5 would have been perfect for some of the narrow roads that the Cayman was a little too big/powerful for. The ideal situation would of course be to keep both, but I'm operating a strict two car policy (practical and toy). So if the MX-5 comes in, the Cayman will go out. I've loved the Porsche, but I fancy a change and the MX-5 is what it's likely to be.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff