RE: Mazda MX-5: Review

[wemorgan]

Iamnotkloot said:

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?

if only you understood how difficult/expensive all those things are to achieve, you'd appreciate it better

[pSynrg]

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.

Yeah, rubbish, compare PC, mobile phone or laptop from 25 years ago!

Surely this should weigh 200 grams, 0-60 in 0.4 nano seconds, do 48000 mpg and seat hundreds of people whilst cruising at mach 4.

[Gad-Westy]

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.

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.

[Gandahar]

Dan, how is the electric power steering compared to the NC's hydraulic?

I like the car looks wise, they have done a good job on everything but the steering worries me. Other tests don't really give too much of a comparison for a definite answer. It's the only thing that worries me might be worse.

Note I think the gearing on this is also still short, so 160bhp tonne and what we call "revving the engine" should be sufficient to overtake .. empty B roads are always best though of course

[KarlMac]

I like it.

I just wish Mazda would do a factory version with a rotary in, even if detuned to 160-200hp, i've seen a few rotary converted mx5s and they have amazing character / charm / insert other cliché.

Only competition I can see for this is the Suboyota BR86, which obviously isn't a soft top.

[SmilerFTM]

The Hypno-Toad said:

What was going to the Alfa Spider is now going to be the Fiat Spider and it will be based on the New Mazda MX-5. The boss of the FIAT group said when he came to power that no new Alfa was going to be built outside of Italy, so he threw away one of the most iconic names and images in the motor industry and gave the car to a brand that is most known in this country for poor reliability, boring cars and a reputation for unorganised customer service.

Hope that works out well for him.

I knew that but didn't know if Alpha were doing there own new one. I hadn't heard anything so thought I'd ask. I did have a sneaky suspicion he was getting the new Fiat mixed up with the Alpha though as it was touted as being so not too long ago

[Dan Trent]

Gandahar said:

Dan, how is the electric power steering compared to the NC's hydraulic?

I like the car looks wise, they have done a good job on everything but the steering worries me. Other tests don't really give too much of a comparison for a definite answer. It's the only thing that worries me might be worse.

Note I think the gearing on this is also still short, so 160bhp tonne and what we call "revving the engine" should be sufficient to overtake .. empty B roads are always best though of course

Morning all,

Enjoying the conversation thread and to pick up on a couple of points the reason the steering probably hasn't cropped up in conversation is that it's pretty unobtrusive. We were lucky enough to drive the ND back to back with all the previous models around Goodwood and I'd say the NC had a little more weight and feel to it but the new car is smooth, direct and decent enough for an electric system. At a tactile level the wheel is lovely, with a nice slim rim to it and feels a perfect size. If you want to know numbers it's a 15.5:1 rack and is 2.7 turns lock to lock. NC was also 2.7 turns but I don't have the ratio to hand; obviously that was hydraulic assistance.

And apologies for the slightly clumsy phrasing of that thing about the fabric roof - basically the power to weight comparisons are slightly skewed now because ALL 2.0-litre NC MX-5s are now Roadster Coupes and you can only get a fabric roof on the 1.8. There are various figures around for 2.0s with the fabric roof but consensus seems to be c. 1,090kg without driver so c. +90kg like for like over the 2.0 ND.

And I'm interested the overtaking thing has struck such a chord. Bear in mind my personal steer is a MY93 1.6 Eunos with (at best) 120hp and I'll fully agree that reading the road, carrying speed and using forward planning can overcome the supposed power deficit and isn't necessarily the hindrance to overtaking many might think. Attack is the best form of defence though so I thought I'd raise it in the story before it came up in the thread - certainly those raised on the current crop of boosty turbo engines that deliver peak torque at less than 2,000rpm will find the need to drop a couple of gears and rev the nuts off it counter intuitive. And if you think you can just pull out and nail it round people it ain't going to happen.

Those who know MX-5s will realise that of course. And the fact it's being so vigorously discussed means 'job done' as far as raising it in the story is concerned. There is method to the madness. Sometimes.

Cheers!

Dan

[Baryonyx]

I really like the look of the new MX5, though I think that is in part helped by the fact that the NC was so ugly and goofy looking, Mazda really didn't have to try very hard to make a better looking car!

The specs sound fine to me. MX-5's have always been about poise and balance, so it makes sense to keep the revvy N/A engines.

[otolith]

Dan Trent said:

certainly those raised on the current crop of boosty turbo engines that deliver peak torque at less than 2,000rpm will find the need to drop a couple of gears and rev the nuts off it counter intuitive

Those people who don't understand how to use a gearbox - that's who those L plates are for!

[rwindmill]

The thing I have always loved about the Mazda MX-5, and something I'm glad this article alluded to, is that through all the generations Mazda have kept the weight/dimensions/power of the cars about the same.

If this were a BMW or an Audi, it would be the size of LWB Transit van, the weight of a small planet and powered by a quad turbo V12 by now.

I have never understood the philosophy behind 'bigger must be better'. The roads we drive these cars on, haven't gotten any bigger, nor have the parking spaces in car park, or the garages at home. So why should the next generation of all cars, be bigger??

[daveco]

rwindmill said:

The thing I have always loved about the Mazda MX-5, and something I'm glad this article alluded to, is that through all the generations Mazda have kept the weight/dimensions/power of the cars about the same.

If this were a BMW or an Audi, it would be the size of LWB Transit van, the weight of a small planet and powered by a quad turbo V12 by now.

I have never understood the philosophy behind 'bigger must be better'. The roads we drive these cars on, haven't gotten any bigger, nor have the parking spaces in car park, or the garages at home. So why should the next generation of all cars, be bigger??

Most people associate bigger with safer (good for family) or with power (keep up with the Joneses). The German marques are cutting their nose off to spite their faces imo. All are moving towards generic FWD, forced induction. Sales will be won on three fronts: fuel economy, power, and looks. All while the Japanese/Korean competition catch up and sell a better car with a 30 year warranty on it

[Steve vRS]

I like the look of it - a lot!

I didn't realise that the MX5 had now become an object of hate on PH though. What will that make me if I were to get one - a cyclist in an MX5? General Gassing would break - especially if I spotted someone eating cornflakes in a Land Rover

Steve

[spudlink]

rwindmill said:

I have never understood the philosophy behind 'bigger must be better'. The roads we drive these cars on, haven't gotten any bigger, nor have the parking spaces in car park, or the garages at home. So why should the next generation of all cars, be bigger??

Completely agree.

I find it interesting that people are making the comparison with similarly prices hot hatches.
The first MX-5 was launched in the first golden age of the hot hatch. The 'traditional sports car' was almost dead, apart from decades old offerings from MG or Alfa. Mazda made it possible to buy a RWD front engined modern car for hot hatch money. So here we are again with the hot hatch in accendancy, and Mazda are still offering a modern car with the spirit of the traditional sports car.
My point is the fast, easy to drive, carry the kids and shopping, hatchback is still what most people want, but the enduring success of the MX-5 shows there will always be people that want what it offers.

[Robert Elise]

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.

But still a great drive maybe?
As a counterpoint, BMW put a glorious V8 in the E90 M3 and made a car that overall i find less desirable than its predecessors, despite the stats 'saying' otherwise.

[BeastieBoy73]

My wife has a NB MX5 that we are hoping to swap for a NC later this year (hoping the used values will be effected by this new one coming out).

My local Mazda dealer (West Bridgford, Nottingham) has a new one to check out 18th July, Maybe you local dealer has, too?

Great that it costs £18k. I read elsewhere that with taking inflation into account, the original car would today cost £32k

[underphil]

car & driver clocked the 2.0 0-60 in 5.9s - that's plenty quick in my opinion

[otolith]

That is a rolling start, though - the way the US mags record it, the clock doesn't start ticking until the car has moved a foot.

[converted lurker]

I used to thrape my mk2 mx5 everywhere and routinely power oversteer on familiar roundabouts inI the wet. Then I bought a much more powerful early Z4 with loads more performance. I never power over steered it and had less fun in it.

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.

[wemorgan]

underphil said:

car & driver clocked the 2.0 0-60 in 5.9s - that's plenty quick in my opinion

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"

[threespires]

In 1991 my MX-5 with 150 bhp BBR turbo fitted had a list price of exactly £19,000.
The 2015 MX-5 Mk4 is similarly priced and includes items not fitted to the original :- air bags, ABS, AC, CD, side impact bars, glass rear window, six speed 'box etc.