RE: Mazda MX-5 2.0 (2019): Driven
Discussion
If you ignore 'some' of the regs that manufacturers work to then BBR's figures perhaps give a better feel for what this could have been in a world similar to when the S2000 was in manufacture.
214bhp at 7,000rpm and 182lbft at 3,800rpm from memory, with fuel consumption that beggars belief, even when you thrash it :-)
The engine doesn't scream to the red line anything like the Honda but the low down torque makes up for that.
214bhp at 7,000rpm and 182lbft at 3,800rpm from memory, with fuel consumption that beggars belief, even when you thrash it :-)
The engine doesn't scream to the red line anything like the Honda but the low down torque makes up for that.
Edited by Simon Owen on Thursday 30th August 15:17
tankplanker said:
'd like to know this as well, the leaked version of the car's software that has been available for a while has Android Auto support, it would be nice to know if the latest version has it as well.
£28k! Anybody paying the RRP for these is mad. We paid £20k for our 2l Sport ND with the Soul Red two years ago as a pre registered car.
I love ours but it is in need of a trip to BBR for some fettling. While it isn't massive we managed to squeeze in a tent and camping gear into the boot to go to Le Mans this year without resorting to putting stuff by the passenger's feet.
Article says it is £22K mate not £28K.£28k! Anybody paying the RRP for these is mad. We paid £20k for our 2l Sport ND with the Soul Red two years ago as a pre registered car.
I love ours but it is in need of a trip to BBR for some fettling. While it isn't massive we managed to squeeze in a tent and camping gear into the boot to go to Le Mans this year without resorting to putting stuff by the passenger's feet.
I owned a160 horse 2.0 Sport NC about ten years ago. Cracking motor, easily enough performance for what it is, fantastic chassis and a genuinely very crap Bose radio. Made me smile. What more do you need (beyond a decent radio)? The ND is seemingly more of the same.
Certainly, for the NC, those saying it needed more power either hadn't driven one or were straight-line-Stanleys and I suspect the same is true for the ND...
Certainly, for the NC, those saying it needed more power either hadn't driven one or were straight-line-Stanleys and I suspect the same is true for the ND...
Mike335i said:
Conscript said:
SloCoach said:
So nearly 20 years since Honda brought us the S2000 with 240 BHP from 2 litres the Mazda can manage 184.
A little bit of an unfair comparison, I feel. They're managing 184BHP with CO2 @ 156g/Km and 40.9MPG. A quick Google suggests that the S2000 is 235g/Km and closer to ~30MPG. Efficiency stats might mean nothing to you, but the reality is, they do to manufacturers. If anything, I think Mazda should be applauded for achieving such a decent blend of power/economy without resorting to forced induction. Simon Owen said:
The engine doesn't scream to the red line anything like the Honda but the low down torque makes up for that.
The lack of low down torque on my new 2006 Honda S2000 drove me up the wall, forever having to thrash through the gears to make it go. It was a huge disappointment after the Mk1 1.6 slightly tweaked MX-5 I exchanged it for. I always reckoned the Mazda was faster or certainly seemed so & far more nimble. Edited by Simon Owen on Thursday 30th August 15:17
Seems like the new more powerful version of the MX-5 is exactly what it should be, by why not first time around?.
If you can live with the titchy cabin, & stupid ugly laptop seemingly Velcroed to the dash then it's nigh on lightweight sportscar perfection without having to go all manly hairy-chested crude basic & Lotus7-like.
cib24 said:
Great buy. After a purchase I would immediately have it rustproofed with a quality underseal and cavity wax, then big brake kit, stainless lines, upgraded pads, coilovers, and Yokohama AD08Rs. Then once BBR has a 225bhp NA kit put it on and drive it all the time.
...or you could just buy a Z4 instead of ruining an MX-5?
Baldchap said:
I owned a160 horse 2.0 Sport NC about ten years ago. Cracking motor, easily enough performance for what it is, fantastic chassis and a genuinely very crap Bose radio. Made me smile. What more do you need (beyond a decent radio)? The ND is seemingly more of the same.
Certainly, for the NC, those saying it needed more power either hadn't driven one or were straight-line-Stanleys and I suspect the same is true for the ND...
The Bose can't have been worse than the Alpine unit in my wife's NC. Mazda had the Alpine firmware 'tweaked' to remove all the sound adjustment to leave a tinny boom; in theory you could hack it but I never got round to it; if I'd bricked it the consequences would be too hard to bear...Certainly, for the NC, those saying it needed more power either hadn't driven one or were straight-line-Stanleys and I suspect the same is true for the ND...
molineux1980 said:
I've much want for an MX5 since I sold my NA 3 years ago. This looks spot on.
Sadly 2 young kids and a new house means it's a pipe dream.
Maybe in the future......
Same here, not sure I could justify it to my missus and the two kids would constantly argue about who is coming with Dad! I suspect I will be in coupes (four seaters) for another ten years! Sadly 2 young kids and a new house means it's a pipe dream.
Maybe in the future......
What a breath of fresh air this car is. All we've been reading the past few years is that manufacturers are being forced to use downsized turbocharged engines for even sub 200bhp cars due to emissions regulations, it's clearly not true. Great to see Mazda sticking to the N/A recipe, it's simply better for a car of this type.
asimmalik said:
What a breath of fresh air this car is. All we've been reading the past few years is that manufacturers are being forced to use downsized turbocharged engines for even sub 200bhp cars due to emissions regulations, it's clearly not true. Great to see Mazda sticking to the N/A recipe, it's simply better for a car of this type.
+ (MX) 5!!Onehp said:
I drove the 1.5 for a day and it's lack of power was refreshing. I enjoyed driving it within the speed limit, honestly not a single other car has done that for me. And some real fun to be had when pressing on some more, making the most of those sweet revs, and yet you know you never risked you license. Of course you need to lift at some point, but by then you've had plenty of fun, countary to 'fast enough' alternatives where you MUST lift after, what, 4-5 seconds?
It was also one of the few cars where I immediately didn't want to change something. The lean in the corners was fine by me, the relative lack of body control at speed exciting/challenging and not bothersomebin a car this light and talkative, it sounded about just right. I'm also told it's surprising frugal, added bonus. Just that driving position which is now fixed. The new 2.0 sounds like a great proposition likewise, but you'll need to lift sooner, I know how it is having had a GT86 with similar power to weight. Driving my very capable fast HH, I feel I really need to wait, wait, wait, before I can have a short squirt of driving joy when circustances are appropriate. Feels like 90% waiting and 10% paranoia. Make that 95% and 5%.
So deep down I want a ND 1.5, maybe this 2.0 but I already know it's actually too quick already also, such is the world we live in. And I have no use for a tiny ND Which is where the true joy would be, with daily use.
Suzuki Swift Sport? I am biased however ;-)It was also one of the few cars where I immediately didn't want to change something. The lean in the corners was fine by me, the relative lack of body control at speed exciting/challenging and not bothersomebin a car this light and talkative, it sounded about just right. I'm also told it's surprising frugal, added bonus. Just that driving position which is now fixed. The new 2.0 sounds like a great proposition likewise, but you'll need to lift sooner, I know how it is having had a GT86 with similar power to weight. Driving my very capable fast HH, I feel I really need to wait, wait, wait, before I can have a short squirt of driving joy when circustances are appropriate. Feels like 90% waiting and 10% paranoia. Make that 95% and 5%.
So deep down I want a ND 1.5, maybe this 2.0 but I already know it's actually too quick already also, such is the world we live in. And I have no use for a tiny ND
Which is where the true joy would be, with daily use.Edited by Onehp on Thursday 30th August 06:39
Personally this new car would be top of my list when I move on from my Swift Sport but as I've said in other MX5 threads, the lack of rust proofing kills it for me. Aftermarket rustproofing solutions are never as effective as as proper factory galvanising.
Jon_S_Rally said:
While I'm pleased this car exists, I don't think I would ever buy one. The looks put me off. The high bonnet line which suddenly drops away at the nose makes it looks really odd from side-on. A sad necessity due to pedestrian protection I suspect, but it's ruined the looks of the car for me. That and a two-seater sports car is still useless to most people. It would always have to be a second car for me and, if it's a second car, it can be more hardcore, so the MX-5 would just never register on my list.
Like I say though, I'm glad Mazda are still knocking them out and that they're still producing vaguely interesting NA four pots.
Many of us don't have kids.Like I say though, I'm glad Mazda are still knocking them out and that they're still producing vaguely interesting NA four pots.
That means we can have lots of 2 seat sports cars and not sure why it's useless using your 'most people' as in that case 'most people' have 2 cars.
WJNB said:
The lack of low down torque on my new 2006 Honda S2000 drove me up the wall, forever having to thrash through the gears to make it go. It was a huge disappointment after the Mk1 1.6 slightly tweaked MX-5 I exchanged it for. I always reckoned the Mazda was faster or certainly seemed so & far more nimble.
Seems like the new more powerful version of the MX-5 is exactly what it should be, by why not first time around?.
If you can live with the titchy cabin, & stupid ugly laptop seemingly Velcroed to the dash then it's nigh on lightweight sportscar perfection without having to go all manly hairy-chested crude basic & Lotus7-like.
Many years ago I took a Honda S2000 for a test drive and came away disappointed. It was probably down to the fact that the test drive was in a city centre and we never got to stretch it's legs properly but if felt so feeble at low RPM, I don't think the VTEC ever kicked in on that drive but I did experience the VTEC kick on another later test drive and wow that was impressive but the issue was unless you were in the VTEC band it felt just dull.Seems like the new more powerful version of the MX-5 is exactly what it should be, by why not first time around?.
If you can live with the titchy cabin, & stupid ugly laptop seemingly Velcroed to the dash then it's nigh on lightweight sportscar perfection without having to go all manly hairy-chested crude basic & Lotus7-like.
My car is due in for a service next month so hoping they will have a demonstrator that I can go out in while they change the oil.
Well done Mazda, they have got this right, nice dollop of thoughtful engineering, it’s not quite a full S2000 successor but a BBR N/A kit for this engine will surely follow, that review I really look forward to.
Would have one with a BBR N/A kit as a daily in a heartbeat if I was in the market for something reasonablely priced and didn’t need practically.
Cannot understand why anyone would buy the Fiat alternative now.
Would have one with a BBR N/A kit as a daily in a heartbeat if I was in the market for something reasonablely priced and didn’t need practically.
Cannot understand why anyone would buy the Fiat alternative now.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff