RE: Mazda MX-5: Review

[LasseV]

Paul_M3 said:

Exactly.

The guy that I car share with has a VW Up!, and he still manages to overtake things. (Although not quite as easily as when it's my week to drive. )

As far as I know the VW is nearer to 80 bhp/ton than 160.

I imagine people have got so used to lots of mid-range torque, that they forget about the idea of dropping a couple of gears and taking it to the rev limiter.

Yes, you are right. People thinks that 2.0 litre diesels are fast cars because of mid-range torque, but they are not fast when you really push them. It is a shame that someone really think that new mx5 is too slow, when in reality it is quite fast to a certain point. I find that quarter mile time is actually very good, so is 0-60mph time too.

[Rickyy]

Paul_M3 said:

T0MMY said:

otolith said:

If you can't overtake with 160 bhp/ton, I recommend a pair of these.

You took the words right out of my mouth. When exactly did overtaking become so difficult that 160bhp/tonne was insufficient? Don't recall reading reviews of, oh I don't know, a 205 Gti (or almost any Gti prior to the year 2000) and seeing "handles well but you'll struggle to overtake anything in it".

Exactly.

The guy that I car share with has a VW Up!, and he still manages to overtake things. (Although not quite as easily as when it's my week to drive. )

As far as I know the VW is nearer to 80 bhp/ton than 160.

I imagine people have got so used to lots of mid-range torque, that they forget about the idea of dropping a couple of gears and taking it to the rev limiter.

160 BHP/ton would be incredible! I manage to overtake with approx 44 BHP/ton in my van (88BHP and I'm guessing two ton), granted I can't perform overtakes I could in a faster car, but my Mk1 MX5 is 125-130BHP/ton and I've never struggled to overtake in it, unless you try and drive it like a diesel.

[Charlie Michael]

Rickyy said:

Paul_M3 said:

T0MMY said:

otolith said:

If you can't overtake with 160 bhp/ton, I recommend a pair of these.

You took the words right out of my mouth. When exactly did overtaking become so difficult that 160bhp/tonne was insufficient? Don't recall reading reviews of, oh I don't know, a 205 Gti (or almost any Gti prior to the year 2000) and seeing "handles well but you'll struggle to overtake anything in it".

Exactly.

The guy that I car share with has a VW Up!, and he still manages to overtake things. (Although not quite as easily as when it's my week to drive. )

As far as I know the VW is nearer to 80 bhp/ton than 160.

I imagine people have got so used to lots of mid-range torque, that they forget about the idea of dropping a couple of gears and taking it to the rev limiter.

160 BHP/ton would be incredible! I manage to overtake with approx 44 BHP/ton in my van (88BHP and I'm guessing two ton), granted I can't perform overtakes I could in a faster car, but my Mk1 MX5 is 125-130BHP/ton and I've never struggled to overtake in it, unless you try and drive it like a diesel.

I find overtaking a synch in my MX-5. No problem overtaking old ladies and snails!

[npf20]

When lowered, it evokes the F-type. I assume this has been said before. That does put a complexion on the price, at least for times when the car is stationary.

[Mr-B]

Won a competition to take this round Goodwood circuit on Sunday at the FoS, can't wait. Never driven an MX-5 before so hoping to see what it's all about.

[j_s14a]

Interesting that on paper, the MK3 MR2 is a close match for the new 2.0 MX5 in most regards. Just shows what a great little car Toyota built at the time.

[Sampaio]

npf20 said:

When lowered, it evokes the F-type. I assume this has been said before. That does put a complexion on the price, at least for times when the car is stationary.

I really don't get why people say this looks even remotely close to an F-Type...

[thelawnet1]

wemorgan said:

emission / fuel economy. I imagine that the target customer wants an affordable car with a balance of performance and economy. There's plenty of second-hand RX8 for those who like performance without economy.

Yeah but the MX5 actually delivers the claimed figures.

[IntriguedUser]

Who would have issues overtaking with 160 bhp/ton?? Lol

I have 114 bhp/ton and its a doddle, just make sure you're in the right gear and plan ahead. Although a short ration box does help

1st 30
2nd 55
3rd 85
4th 105

[suffolk009]

My wife runs around in an old SLK. I have a Mazda Eunos for the fun of it.

The SLK is capable, comfortable, quiet and much quicker than the Mazda. I never pick up the SLK keys when I want to go out and have some fun.

It's not my only sportscar, but it is my favourite.

[Triguy]

This looks like it could be FUN.

Seriously considering it as a supplement to my Golf.

[converted lurker]

I think this car will sell well.

160bhp per ton, lovely gearbox and NA engine. RWD, sensible running costs, Jap reliability. It ticks all my boxes for a fun third car in the garage. Just wish they'd come out three years ago so that Dr Depreciation could have worked his magic already. Looks like I'm going to own a V8 Rangerover, a straight six 5 series and a MX5mkIV. That seems to cover everything. :-)

[daddy cool]

I assume the PH review/test drive didnt involve any 0-60 timed sprints? Im interested to see how the quoted times (1.5l 8.3s, 2.0l 7.3s) stack up against the very bullish claims coming from the US testers (albeit most of theirs were 5-60mph runs)

[matpilch]

looks great, apart from the tail lights - should have stick with the original design..

[12lee]

Because it's 173kg lighter than the NC Roadster Coupe, fabric roofs on the outgoing car confined to 1.8s for the last cars.

This sentence doesn't make sense to me.

[peter450]

Generally like it, not 100% on the styling but the interior looks good, and I'm sure a folding hardtop will be along shortly as well. There's never been any shortage of aftermarket upgrades for these cars so any shortcoming in ride or power can usually be sorted quite easily. I think Mazda have done a fairly good job.

Shame Alfa dropped their version, definitely an own goal IMO as with another 30 hp and wearing a nicely styled Italian suit I think it would have been a big hit

[Gad-Westy]

IntriguedUser said:

Who would have issues overtaking with 160 bhp/ton?? Lol

I have 114 bhp/ton and its a doddle, just make sure you're in the right gear and plan ahead. Although a short ration box does help

Keeps the driver weight nice and low I assume?

Really like the look of these. I'm a serial MK1 owner and the NB and NC never quite lit my fire. This looks great though. So pleased to see a manufacturer sticking so resolutely to a traditional formula and shedding some bulk in the process. Such a rare thing these days.

[sh33n]

Her indoors has a NC MX-5 2.0 SportTech and for anyone that doesn't get the MX-5 thing you've either haven't driven one or haven't driven it properly. It gives 90% of the joy of a VX220 (which I owned previously) with none of the draw backs.

I went for a quick drive in it yesterday on route to the shops and it's a brilliant fun car and with plenty of power to overtake, gets off the line nicely also being RWD.

Not convinced the new one however has anything different to offer, the looks are growing on me but it seems pointless to trade in a car to pretty much get the same package back (albeit newer I admit) and be lighter in our pockets.

I agree that there isn't any direct rivals to this and if this is what you want, then Mazda have surely delivered to that exact recipe, that said I can see the wife going slightly softer next time with a 2 series convertible or TT, at ~10k more than this new

Edited by sh33n on Wednesday 24th June 09:02

[Iamnotkloot]

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.

[Charlie Michael]

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.

How do you define progression?

What figure do you think should've been "improved" over the 25 years?

As said previously, in an age where legislation and emissions control makes it almost impossible to reach the driveability and ethos of cars gone by, Mazda should be applauded for sticking to the original models stats.

That being said, pop-up headlights would've been much cooler!