RE: New Mazda MX-5: 184hp, 7500rpm? Sold.

[Honeywell]

I wonder what BBRs remap of this revised car will be like? Have Mazda just eaten into the margin that BBR gave you, or, will these stock improvements allow BBR to find yet more power and torque?

This car really is getting to be the answer to everything.

[Kenny Powers]

Remember that the S2000 makes so much power mainly because it revs to 9000rpm.

[Simon Owen]

Nanook said:

30lbft more, for the less powerful engine. Not sure I'd call that 'shocking'

It's is not just about the number, compare the spread of torque over the rev range.

[lotuslover69]

BlackPrince said:

Why would you buy a 4C which has < 250 hp??

If power is SUCH a concern to you, get a bike license, buy a Honda Hornet and run it ragged for a year, and then get a BMW S1000RR with 200 hp, because clearly Mr John Surtees over here finds a 300 hp Cayman to not have enough power...

In all honesty i didn't realise the MX5 was so lightweight tbh, i was assuming it would be around 1250kgs, the Alfa weighs less than 1000kgs and has 250bhp which would give good power to weight and a 0-60 time of 4.5secs. Had the 4c only a 185bhp engine i probably wouldn't be interested even though it has less weight than the mx5.

[Krikkit]

RossP said:

Jonstar said:

RossP said:

Mazda still trying to catch up with the (18 year old) Honda S2000 and failing (240hp and 9,000rpm).

Ignoring the price point, fortunately for Mazda the S2K has no torque and an average chassis.

Good job Mazda very similar to my BBR NC now which is an absolute riot!

No torque? It's still got 7 more than the revised Mazda!

Average chassis? Disagree with that too.

It also carries 250kg more weight... I know the S2k has significantly more power, but still that torque figure is comparatively low. I didn't think the S2k really wanted for that much more shove mind.

[RossP]

amgmcqueen said:

put the S2000 & BBR's Super 200 power and torque curves side by side and the difference in torque is shocking !!

Go on then, show us that! I love a good shock.

Edited by RossP on Wednesday 13th June 15:27

[LG9k]

Chances are the S2000 has shorter gears as it has more revs to play with, and therefore has more torque at the wheels...

The torque numbers are not much use on their own.

Having said all that, the MX-5 looks great.

Edited by LG9k on Wednesday 13th June 14:57

[daveco]

Nanook said:

cds195 said:

Why such a marginal increase in torque though? If I could change one thing (and that at a push!) about the mx5 it would be the acceleration, not the top speed or rev limit. An increase in bhp only really increases the top speed doesn't it...?

No.

Consider a 2001 BMW E46 320i. Actually a 2.2 IIRC. 155lbft, 168bhp.

Now, a Honda S2000. 2.0L. 153lbft, 237bhp.

Which car is faster?

Yep.

It all boils down to HP and gearing. I think the Honda has very quick acceleration even over 100mph relative to its hp, thanks to its gearing.

And I think it's fantastic that someone is making a NA high revving engine again, particularly in such a light package.

If they could fit the same engine to the Mazda 3 or 6 I would buy it as the next family car.

[R400TVR]

Why do people immediately go down the 'strap a turbo to it' route? Modern turbocharged engines are dull, characterless devices. The best way to boost this engine would be the centrifugal supercharger. You'd keep the lovely rev-happy nature and good throttle response, but you'd boost the top end power. AND you could even have it make the stupid vta hiss.

[Simon Owen]

RossP said:

Go on then, show us that! I love a good shock.

At circa 3,500 rpm the difference is around 50-60 lbft which in my book is quite a lot as a % increase.

[LG9k]

Simon Owen said:

At circa 3,500 rpm the difference is around 50-60 lbft which in my book is quite a lot as a % increase.

You can't compare at the same rpm - you need to adjust for the max rpm/gearing.

Roughly speaking:
3,500rpm is 3500/ 6800 = 51.4% max rpms in the MX-5
51.4% of max rpm in the Honda (9,000rpm) is 4,632.

1) How do the torque figures compare? (I suspect the MX-5 still has more but the difference will be less)
2) How does that translate into acceleration? (One for the engineers).

[Simon Owen]

LG9k said:

You can't compare at the same rpm - you need to adjust for the max rpm/gearing.

Roughly speaking:
3,500rpm is 3500/ 6800 = 51.4% max rpms in the MX-5
51.4% of max rpm in the Honda (9,000rpm) is 4,632.

1) How do the torque figures compare? (I suspect the MX-5 still has more but the difference will be less)
2) How does that translate into acceleration? (One for the engineers).

Worse actually as the graph dips a bit at that point.

I actually really like the S2000 engine, very exciting to use !! But the 'blend' of power and torque of the BBR is also very appealing, i.e. nowhere near as free or high reving as the honda but much more low down torque and still revs to 7k nicely.

[Toltec]

LG9k said:

You can't compare at the same rpm - you need to adjust for the max rpm/gearing.

Roughly speaking:
3,500rpm is 3500/ 6800 = 51.4% max rpms in the MX-5
51.4% of max rpm in the Honda (9,000rpm) is 4,632.

1) How do the torque figures compare? (I suspect the MX-5 still has more but the difference will be less)
2) How does that translate into acceleration? (One for the engineers).

There is more to it than that though, if you are fully on it then you will be using the gears to stay in the higher rpm/power region so you would look at power under the graph through the gears then possibly remove power to overcome drag at speed and finally factor in weight to give you an idea how the car would respond at a speed. Having more torque and therefore power at lower rpm tells you more about how responsive the car is going to be while driving in a less committed fashion and how much power reserve you have at cruise rpm.

[RossP]

Simon Owen said:

RossP said:

Go on then, show us that! I love a good shock.

At circa 3,500 rpm the difference is around 50-60 lbft which in my book is quite a lot as a % increase.

But you said "put the S2000 & BBR's Super 200 power and torque curves side by side and the difference in torque is shocking !!"

I want to see that!

[PartOfTheProblem]

I think this is one car that might tempt me out of my 2ZZ engined MR2. Awesome stuff Mazda!

[redroadster]

Decent power upgrade fancy targa version

[LG9k]

Toltec said:

There is more to it than that though, if you are fully on it then you will be using the gears to stay in the higher rpm/power region so you would look at power under the graph through the gears then possibly remove power to overcome drag at speed and finally factor in weight to give you an idea how the car would respond at a speed. Having more torque and therefore power at lower rpm tells you more about how responsive the car is going to be while driving in a less committed fashion and how much power reserve you have at cruise rpm.

In which case, the higher powered car will be faster.

I was contemplating the scenario where gearing is set up to achieve the same top speed in each gear, for example 2nd gear max speed of 60mph, you'd need to multiply the torque figure of the higher rpm car to make a fair comparison.

For example in this case, 9,000/6,800 = 1.32.

The 153 lbf?ft of the S2000 equates to 202.5 lbf?ft on an engine with a limit of 6,800.

It's easier to accelerate in a lower gear ratio, so you need less torque.

I'd like to see the aforementioned power/torque graphs overlaid with the x-axis the same length on both.

Edited by LG9k on Wednesday 13th June 17:08

[Toltec]

LG9k said:

In which case, the higher powered car will be faster.

I was contemplating the scenario where gearing is set up to achieve the same top speed in each gear, for example 2nd gear max speed of 60mph, you'd need to multiply the torque figure of the higher rpm car to make a fair comparison.

For example in this case, 9,000/6,800 = 1.32.

The 153 lbf?ft of the S2000 equates to 202.5 lbf?ft on an engine with a limit of 6,800.

It's easier to accelerate in a lower gear ratio, so you need less torque.

I'd like to see the aforementioned power/torque graphs overlaid with the x-axis the same length on both.

Edited by LG9k on Wednesday 13th June 17:08

The BBR 190 has peak power at 6750 and the S2000 at 8200 so you could use the ratio of 1.21 instead. The BBR has peak torque of 176lbft at 3600rpm, applying the ratio the S2000 has 135 to 140lbft around 4300rpm which means they have very similar amounts of power at that point, though the S200 is heavier.

I don't mean to prove anything other than that you can pick number to prove what you want. The Honda is going to have a higher top speed and will accelerate better at higher speed as drag will mean that eventually it will have a much better power to weight ratio than the Mazda.

You cannot buy a new S2000 though.

[chrispmartha]

BricktopST205 said:

This has just made the Abarth 124 Obsolete. I bet it is cheaper as well. Seems Mazda trolled Fiat all along!

Not really, I’m biased but despite being based on the same car they are totally different, the Abarth will still feel quicker due to the Turbo and the Abarth has far more presence and rareity factor about it. The Abarth has had so much attention and positive comments since ive had which an MX5 simply wont get, oh and the Mazda wont make the crazy noise the Abarth makes.

[chrispmartha]

BricktopST205 said:

Luke. said:

No it hasn't. Have you driven an Abarth?

Would much rather have a 2.0 litre N/A engine that revs to 7500 RPM than a turbo lump in a sports car. Chassis dynamics can be fixed easily and cheaply. What engine your car comes with cannot.

You may prefer the NA engine but the Abarth is about so much more than the engine, The Abarth will feel faster aswell