RE: Abarth 124 Spider vs. Mazda MX-5 2.0
Discussion
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned that despite the higher RRP, the Abarth costs roughly the same to lease as an MX5 (possibly due to lower depreciation?). Lots have been going on special offer recently and as someone else said, dealers are offering massive discounts on ex demo cars.
Anyway, having test drove the following extensively:
1.5 soft top
2.0 soft top
2.0 RF
Abarth 124
I decided to get the Abarth despite the Mazda 2.0 RF being what one would objectively rate as the "better" car. Reading all of the press reviews I would like to flag the following as hyperbole:
The 1.5 & 2.0 Skyactives as being "revvy and responsive" engines. Maybe, if your reference is a diesel. The reviews make these lumps sound like they're GT3 or M power plants the way the reach for the red line and throttle blips smash into the limiter. They patently do not. They're optimised for fuel economy. The last1,000rpm in both models is completely limp. The 1.5 just doesn't feel like something that should be in a car (without wanting to sound snobby - it really is a strimmer). The 2.0 has a nice induction noise for a modern 4-pot and the cabin pipe helps and never feels down on torque despite the peak figure sitting 36lbft below the Abarth.
The "electric steering lacks feel". Well, maybe compared to Lotus but sweet jesus the car is so light and pointy by comparison to 95% of the other cars out there and the chassis set-up is such that you arguably don't ever feel disconnected from the tarmac.
Scuttle shake on the Abarth - again compared to what? An M3 cabrio or B7 RS4? Do me a favour
Rant over.
I think we're just very lucky to have a sub-ton roadster option at a reasonable price again. They're a lot of fun, have what could be reasonably construed as "sports car" performance on the right roads, but are designed for a slightly more relaxed level of progress? Yes.
I went for the "laggy, scuttly, blunt" Abarth because the MultiAir has character and induction/exhaust drama the Mazda does not. Looks are a personal thing. I like both designs but the MX5 is a tad on the dinky Noddy car side of things. The Abarth interior feels sexier and has small but important details; the ridge in the gearstick, better ergo on the steering wheel, better seats, weighter inputs etc. Horses for courses though.
Anyway, having test drove the following extensively:
1.5 soft top
2.0 soft top
2.0 RF
Abarth 124
I decided to get the Abarth despite the Mazda 2.0 RF being what one would objectively rate as the "better" car. Reading all of the press reviews I would like to flag the following as hyperbole:
The 1.5 & 2.0 Skyactives as being "revvy and responsive" engines. Maybe, if your reference is a diesel. The reviews make these lumps sound like they're GT3 or M power plants the way the reach for the red line and throttle blips smash into the limiter. They patently do not. They're optimised for fuel economy. The last1,000rpm in both models is completely limp. The 1.5 just doesn't feel like something that should be in a car (without wanting to sound snobby - it really is a strimmer). The 2.0 has a nice induction noise for a modern 4-pot and the cabin pipe helps and never feels down on torque despite the peak figure sitting 36lbft below the Abarth.
The "electric steering lacks feel". Well, maybe compared to Lotus but sweet jesus the car is so light and pointy by comparison to 95% of the other cars out there and the chassis set-up is such that you arguably don't ever feel disconnected from the tarmac.
Scuttle shake on the Abarth - again compared to what? An M3 cabrio or B7 RS4? Do me a favour
Rant over.
I think we're just very lucky to have a sub-ton roadster option at a reasonable price again. They're a lot of fun, have what could be reasonably construed as "sports car" performance on the right roads, but are designed for a slightly more relaxed level of progress? Yes.
I went for the "laggy, scuttly, blunt" Abarth because the MultiAir has character and induction/exhaust drama the Mazda does not. Looks are a personal thing. I like both designs but the MX5 is a tad on the dinky Noddy car side of things. The Abarth interior feels sexier and has small but important details; the ridge in the gearstick, better ergo on the steering wheel, better seats, weighter inputs etc. Horses for courses though.
I bought an identical MX5 two weeks ago as a replacement for an mk3 MX5 I had for the previous 4 years. Got to say, I love it. The MX5 makes every little journey, however boring and mundane, that little bit more special. Don't think I could live with the looks of the Abarth, never mind the price.
I walk past some much faster and more expensive stuff in my garage to get into the Mazda and never feel like I've made a bad choice.
I walk past some much faster and more expensive stuff in my garage to get into the Mazda and never feel like I've made a bad choice.
bigvanfan said:
Over a certain age you would look silly driving the fiat,terrible looking thing , Mazda for me
IMO, that goes for both cars for me, all the older gentleman I have seen in this model of MX5 look ridiculous, not so much the older one's....The lady's look as fine as usual in them tho, in the case of the Abarth, it let's me know they prefer doggie to missionary, bit more character if you know what I mean... lol
crostonian said:
Pre registered delivery mileage Abarth 124 Spiders are on the market for under £24k, equivalent MX-5 2.0s are available for under £21k so only a £3k difference in reality. The Abarth will also have better residuals so in the long term could be a more cost effective purchase.
Precisely.RichB said:
ndeed, that needs a nice 2.0 Alfa Romeo, twin overhead cam, twin spark engine!
I'd have been happy with the 1.7 out of the 4c, unlikely they'd have stuck a non turbo engine in the performance model. 
Can't stand electric steering, not driven a car yet that I like with it, and it typically only saves 1mpg over hydraulic, pointless in a performance car.
Mazda do lowering springs that are dealer fit for a few hundred that should be better paired with the bilstein dampers that come on the sports model. Slightly wider and stickier rubber doesn't go amiss on the MX-5 either.
Dynamic Turtle said:
The 1.5 & 2.0 Skyactives as being "revvy and responsive" engines. Maybe, if your reference is a diesel. The reviews make these lumps sound like they're GT3 or M power plants the way the reach for the red line and throttle blips smash into the limiter. They patently do not. They're optimised for fuel economy. The last1,000rpm in both models is completely limp. The 1.5 just doesn't feel like something that should be in a car (without wanting to sound snobby - it really is a strimmer). The 2.0 has a nice induction noise for a modern 4-pot and the cabin pipe helps and never feels down on torque despite the peak figure sitting 36lbft below the Abarth
Agreed reference to GT3 or M power plants is very silly !! In a world of forced induction though Mazda have however created a great canvas for the aftermarket brigade to work on once some of the daft emissions box ticking kit is removed. Put the full fat BBR S200 engine (214bhp) next to the S2000 VTEC lump and I would take the BBR every day, never thought I would say this but the blend of low down torque and peak power high up in the rev range is really sweet. No it does not scream to the redline like the Honda but it does pull nicely to the 7k rpm peak power, and the low down torque is in a totally different league to say the Honda, putting the power curves next to each other is shocking !!Appreciate aftermarket is not for everybody (I was in that camp) but the BBR NA Sky Active route is a real breath of fresh air in the current climate.
As an added bonus the fuel economy beggars belief too, very clever.
ecsrobin said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Mx5 for me. Oh wait I'm too tall and can't fit.
But you’d fit in a 124. I’m 6’3” and fit fine. I also think it looks great however the price needs to drop a bit before it becomes competitive. As for power the Abarth with a remap is going to be close to 200bhp for a small price.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 13th October 10:23
Dynamic Turtle said:
The 1.5 & 2.0 Skyactives as being "revvy and responsive" engines. Maybe, if your reference is a diesel. The reviews make these lumps sound like they're GT3 or M power plants the way the reach for the red line and throttle blips smash into the limiter. They patently do not. They're optimised for fuel economy. The last1,000rpm in both models is completely limp. The 1.5 just doesn't feel like something that should be in a car (without wanting to sound snobby - it really is a strimmer). The 2.0 has a nice induction noise for a modern 4-pot and the cabin pipe helps and never feels down on torque despite the peak figure sitting 36lbft below the Abarth.
....the MultiAir has character and induction/exhaust drama the Mazda does not.
Well put - exactly the impressions I had!....the MultiAir has character and induction/exhaust drama the Mazda does not.
Tricky one this, I had a NA MX-5 for 5 years, did 20k miles in it, 15 + trackdays...loved it. Now we have a Megane 275 Cup-S, I would really struggle to go back to the 'less is more' motoring that these 2 cars represent. Modern hot hatches are just so talented and at 30k it's a short walk to a civic type R which was absolutely murder these roadsters at everything apart from the ability to take the roof off.
Itsallicanafford said:
Tricky one this, I had a NA MX-5 for 5 years, did 20k miles in it, 15 + trackdays...loved it. Now we have a Megane 275 Cup-S, I would really struggle to go back to the 'less is more' motoring that these 2 cars represent. Modern hot hatches are just so talented and at 30k it's a short walk to a civic type R which was absolutely murder these roadsters at everything apart from the ability to take the roof off.
And your wife would probably murder you for buying something so fugly!These cars obviously aren't supposed to make much sense or offer practicality. We have a diesel skoda estate for that. And why not have "the best of both worlds" with a hot hatch? Because I'd rather have 2 cars suited specifically for each task, rather than a compromise.
Yes, the family car and roadster combination works well, I had a diesel A6 with the MX-5. I still have a family car now but just find a hot hatch a more rewarding companion vehicle...(in fact, upto earlier this week I had 2 of them, the Megane and a 106 rallye!)
Just as a side note, I have to say, I don't think there is any compromises with the Megane...from the factory it was supplied with a mechanical LSD, road and track adjustable ohlins suspension, a titanium exhaust, brembo's, recarros etc etc...it's a coupe 3 door so I suppose it's a dying breed amounts hot hatches.
Just as a side note, I have to say, I don't think there is any compromises with the Megane...from the factory it was supplied with a mechanical LSD, road and track adjustable ohlins suspension, a titanium exhaust, brembo's, recarros etc etc...it's a coupe 3 door so I suppose it's a dying breed amounts hot hatches.
Yes, the family car and roadster combination works well, I had a diesel A6 with the MX-5. I still have a family car now but just find a hot hatch a more rewarding companion vehicle...(in fact, upto earlier this week I had 2 of them, the Megane and a 106 rallye!)
Just as a side note, I have to say, I don't think there is any compromises with the Megane...from the factory it was supplied with a mechanical LSD, road and track adjustable ohlins suspension, a titanium exhaust, brembo's, recarros etc etc...it's a coupe 3 door so I suppose it's a dying breed amounts hot hatches.
Just as a side note, I have to say, I don't think there is any compromises with the Megane...from the factory it was supplied with a mechanical LSD, road and track adjustable ohlins suspension, a titanium exhaust, brembo's, recarros etc etc...it's a coupe 3 door so I suppose it's a dying breed amounts hot hatches.
Itsallicanafford said:
Yes, the family car and roadster combination works well, I had a diesel A6 with the MX-5. I still have a family car now but just find a hot hatch a more rewarding companion vehicle...(in fact, upto earlier this week I had 2 of them, the Megane and a 106 rallye!)
Just as a side note, I have to say, I don't think there is any compromises with the Megane...from the factory it was supplied with a mechanical LSD, road and track adjustable ohlins suspension, a titanium exhaust, brembo's, recarros etc etc...it's a coupe 3 door so I suppose it's a dying breed amounts hot hatches.
Fair enough, but i have two little cost centres and am forced to load camp bastion volumes of ordnance every time we set off, so space is an issue and a 3 door hatch wont cut it.Just as a side note, I have to say, I don't think there is any compromises with the Megane...from the factory it was supplied with a mechanical LSD, road and track adjustable ohlins suspension, a titanium exhaust, brembo's, recarros etc etc...it's a coupe 3 door so I suppose it's a dying breed amounts hot hatches.
I'm also guessing the Megane, which is clearly pretty special on track, rides a tad harsh for a daily driver / motorway muncher? The Skoda is like blancmange on a greased bowling alley.
Itsallicanafford said:
Tricky one this, I had a NA MX-5 for 5 years, did 20k miles in it, 15 + trackdays...loved it. Now we have a Megane 275 Cup-S, I would really struggle to go back to the 'less is more' motoring that these 2 cars represent. Modern hot hatches are just so talented and at 30k it's a short walk to a civic type R which was absolutely murder these roadsters at everything apart from the ability to take the roof off.
I get this, we're running a 275 Trophy on Ohlins with the BBR ND .... love the attributes of the Mazda, lightweight, front engine RWD layout, LSD, NA, roofless etc but boy do I wish it had the focus of the Megane !! Not the speed or outright grip necessarily but just the way it steers, changes direction and feels razor sharp in your hands ..... we love the Mazda for being a small lightweight 2x seat sports car but If only Renaultsport made an MX5 eh ?!?!As an aside running the Ohlins in 'bumpy road' setting works fine as a daily.
Edited by Simon Owen on Friday 13th October 20:55
Edited by Simon Owen on Friday 13th October 20:58
Cotic said:
Dynamic Turtle said:
The 1.5 & 2.0 Skyactives as being "revvy and responsive" engines. Maybe, if your reference is a diesel. The reviews make these lumps sound like they're GT3 or M power plants the way the reach for the red line and throttle blips smash into the limiter. They patently do not. They're optimised for fuel economy. The last1,000rpm in both models is completely limp. The 1.5 just doesn't feel like something that should be in a car (without wanting to sound snobby - it really is a strimmer). The 2.0 has a nice induction noise for a modern 4-pot and the cabin pipe helps and never feels down on torque despite the peak figure sitting 36lbft below the Abarth.
....the MultiAir has character and induction/exhaust drama the Mazda does not.
Well put - exactly the impressions I had!....the MultiAir has character and induction/exhaust drama the Mazda does not.
Dynamic Turtle said:
Fair enough, but i have two little cost centres and am forced to load camp bastion volumes of ordnance every time we set off, so space is an issue and a 3 door hatch wont cut it.
I'm also guessing the Megane, which is clearly pretty special on track, rides a tad harsh for a daily driver / motorway muncher? The Skoda is like blancmange on a greased bowling alley.
I'm also guessing the Megane, which is clearly pretty special on track, rides a tad harsh for a daily driver / motorway muncher? The Skoda is like blancmange on a greased bowling alley.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff