RE: 2019 Mazda MX-5 vs Toyota GT86 Blue Edition
Discussion
Mr Tidy said:
Are Japanese horses lazy, or are their kgs heavier?
GT86 with 200 bhp and weighing 1,238kg takes 7.7 seconds to get to 60 mph.
E46 325ti with 189 bhp and weighing 1,380kg gets to 62 mph in 7.1 seconds.
That revised MX5 looks like a much better idea.
Toyota deliberately pessimistic with figures, I do not know why.GT86 with 200 bhp and weighing 1,238kg takes 7.7 seconds to get to 60 mph.
E46 325ti with 189 bhp and weighing 1,380kg gets to 62 mph in 7.1 seconds.
That revised MX5 looks like a much better idea.
Back of Evo mag has tested a GT86 with a time of 6.5s to 60mph and 16.5s to 100mph.
Not bad for the power and weight.
cib24 said:
What about cams? Why don't people put aftermarket cams in these types of NA cars anymore? Like the old Honda days.
Are there cams, lifters and valve spring upgrades that unlock more NA potential?
I cannot remember exactly but when I researched tuning a few years ago I think the reason was that there wasn't enough room for higher lift cams. Are there cams, lifters and valve spring upgrades that unlock more NA potential?
Vague memory I know but I'm sure it was tried and discounted early on.
As stated a good remap and removal of one cat is a good option. Main cat in manifold, or second cat in exhaust front pipe.
Also final drive change to improve acceleration and flexibility is a good option (yes I know there are pros and cons to this idea).
Having read the article, most of it seems to imply that the MX-5 was borderline undriveable before this facelift, and now has finally received the chassis and engine it deserves. Owning a second year of production MX-5 ND, I would advise taking this with a fair pinch (hefty dose) of 'journalist gets to drive new car and needs to say nice things about it' salt. Either that, or simply a lack of knowledge about the pre-facelift version (having only driven a stock/standard car).
Here's the real deal: the ND was a gem, from the start. But it needed one, very simple tweak, which even Mazda was suggesting if you were listening carefully.
In terms of chassis, it was indeed set up to please 'average' drivers and give them a sensation of speed, by fitting springs that would let it roll into corners. Even for relatively tame experienced drivers such as myself, this was too much of a pretty good thing. For us, Mazda very obviously put some replacement springs in their OEM accessories catalogue (how often have you seen springs in an OEM accessory catalogue?). I believe they are H&R but can't be bothered to look it up. In any case, these were dirt cheap and immediately sort out the chassis. I've driven my MX-5 on challenging, fast tracks a few times now, and the chassis is simply faultless with these fitted. Nothing on street rubber can get past this car in traction-limited situations (i.e. into, through and out of corners). It also feels completely natural and intuitive to drive. I'd be mightily surprised if the facelift genuinely betters this, unless Mazda somehow managed to sneak the engine under the seat and made it mid-engined in the process (yes, a mate's Cayman truly is more balanced - but then nothing betters that). Mind you, mine is the 2.0 Sport, so it has the Bilstein dampers, which are excellent. Yes, they let the car move with the road rather than damp it into submission, but that's kind of the point right - this is not an S-class and it's a featherweight so it can't smash a road into submission.
Then there is the engine. This is where it becomes a bit more nuanced. The new one is definitely better (I can say that without having driven it, though I will soon). The old engine simply feels like it's missing that last 1.000 rpm and kick of power. But in the fight between a pre-facelift ND with 6-7K off its price versus the new one, you can't exactly say the old engine isn't value for money, if you are faced with a choice between buying a second hand (or keep the car you have, like me) and getting the facelift. It's still perfectly satisfactory, moves the car at a great lick (good enough for fun on any road or even track) and has that same uncanny (for a modern car) throttle response - the high CO2 ratings show Mazda really engineered it to be like that (no electronic dulling of throttle to save a few grammes). I've been meaning to take mine to BBR once out of warranty (now the case), who can fettle it right up to the new engine's power output, made 700 rpm higher in the rev range (without a turbo). We'll see what they can do with the new one, but likely there is less headroom left than before (when they simply plunked a Mazda 3's engine in without tuning it). And don't talk to me about turbo kits, for crying out loud this is just about the only affordable naturally-aspirated sports car still out there (except GT86/BRZ which where I live, literally nobody has bought), and you'd spoil it with a turbo?
Here's the real deal: the ND was a gem, from the start. But it needed one, very simple tweak, which even Mazda was suggesting if you were listening carefully.
In terms of chassis, it was indeed set up to please 'average' drivers and give them a sensation of speed, by fitting springs that would let it roll into corners. Even for relatively tame experienced drivers such as myself, this was too much of a pretty good thing. For us, Mazda very obviously put some replacement springs in their OEM accessories catalogue (how often have you seen springs in an OEM accessory catalogue?). I believe they are H&R but can't be bothered to look it up. In any case, these were dirt cheap and immediately sort out the chassis. I've driven my MX-5 on challenging, fast tracks a few times now, and the chassis is simply faultless with these fitted. Nothing on street rubber can get past this car in traction-limited situations (i.e. into, through and out of corners). It also feels completely natural and intuitive to drive. I'd be mightily surprised if the facelift genuinely betters this, unless Mazda somehow managed to sneak the engine under the seat and made it mid-engined in the process (yes, a mate's Cayman truly is more balanced - but then nothing betters that). Mind you, mine is the 2.0 Sport, so it has the Bilstein dampers, which are excellent. Yes, they let the car move with the road rather than damp it into submission, but that's kind of the point right - this is not an S-class and it's a featherweight so it can't smash a road into submission.
Then there is the engine. This is where it becomes a bit more nuanced. The new one is definitely better (I can say that without having driven it, though I will soon). The old engine simply feels like it's missing that last 1.000 rpm and kick of power. But in the fight between a pre-facelift ND with 6-7K off its price versus the new one, you can't exactly say the old engine isn't value for money, if you are faced with a choice between buying a second hand (or keep the car you have, like me) and getting the facelift. It's still perfectly satisfactory, moves the car at a great lick (good enough for fun on any road or even track) and has that same uncanny (for a modern car) throttle response - the high CO2 ratings show Mazda really engineered it to be like that (no electronic dulling of throttle to save a few grammes). I've been meaning to take mine to BBR once out of warranty (now the case), who can fettle it right up to the new engine's power output, made 700 rpm higher in the rev range (without a turbo). We'll see what they can do with the new one, but likely there is less headroom left than before (when they simply plunked a Mazda 3's engine in without tuning it). And don't talk to me about turbo kits, for crying out loud this is just about the only affordable naturally-aspirated sports car still out there (except GT86/BRZ which where I live, literally nobody has bought), and you'd spoil it with a turbo?
Interesting match but IME the two aren't rivals
You either want a 2 seater, convertible or you don't - I do and have owned one for 20+ years
I also own "practical cars" which might then see me consider a coupe or a hatch possibly against a 4x4 but I've never considered any of them a substitute for a Sports car.
You either want a 2 seater, convertible or you don't - I do and have owned one for 20+ years
I also own "practical cars" which might then see me consider a coupe or a hatch possibly against a 4x4 but I've never considered any of them a substitute for a Sports car.
V8RX7 said:
Interesting match but IME the two aren't rivals
You either want a 2 seater, convertible or you don't - I do and have owned one for 20+ years
I also own "practical cars" which might then see me consider a coupe or a hatch possibly against a 4x4 but I've never considered any of them a substitute for a Sports car.
Well you're very wrong, I'd consider any of these cars for a start and I know others that would too.You either want a 2 seater, convertible or you don't - I do and have owned one for 20+ years
I also own "practical cars" which might then see me consider a coupe or a hatch possibly against a 4x4 but I've never considered any of them a substitute for a Sports car.
V8RX7 said:
I'm very wrong in my experience of owning convertible cars for 20+ years
Whilst you're right and don't own one
Edited by V8RX7 on Saturday 29th September 13:31
So yes, you're wrong in terms of speaking for what I, amongst others, want.
Dust said:
mine is the 2.0 Sport, so it has the Bilstein dampers, which are excellent. Yes, they let the car move with the road rather than damp it into submission, but that's kind of the point right - this is not an S-class and it's a featherweight so it can't smash a road into submission.
Do you find this is still the case on broken tarmac, obviously I don't mean potholes but say a deteriorating surface on a B road. I ask as I have a 1.5 SE-L so comes with standard dampers. Currently the car is not upset by poor surfaces which is a bonus for fun driving on road but I feel it could sometimes do with slightly more control.xu5 said:
Do you find this is still the case on broken tarmac, obviously I don't mean potholes but say a deteriorating surface on a B road. I ask as I have a 1.5 SE-L so comes with standard dampers. Currently the car is not upset by poor surfaces which is a bonus for fun driving on road but I feel it could sometimes do with slightly more control.
I recently drove mine for a full day where at some point we ended up on a highly entertaining, but completely 'broken' B road. The MX-5 was awesome on that, keeping an S4 Avant (quattro & tons more HP) very honest, though you need to 'trust the process'. By that I mean, it is lightweight, so it will move about - but it will also keep traction. I do feel the accessory springs help here, as roll is not helpful on a road like that. It's kind of hard to get a sense for how well it grips in a situation like that though, because the only weak point on the car is that the steering lacks feeling. Some journalists claim the opposite but what they mean is that it is well weighted - however it's fully electric so it doesn't tell you what's actually going on, only what should be happening 'in theory' (according to the computer that translates back & forward between you and the wheel/tyres).Anyway, I recently drove the new, upgraded engine (the facelift 2.0), back-to-back with mine. The car was pretty new so the engine was still 'tight'. With that being said (and I'm sure it should improve with some miles), it didn't feel much faster than mine at the top end. What it undeniably has though, is just that last little bit of rev range as it pulls to around 6.800 (while the pre-fl is best shifted at around 6.300), which is nice and feels more natural (more intuitive in terms of timing your shift). It also has more mid-range torque, but then again the pre-fl wasn't exactly lacking in that regard so that's not a real reason to buy the facelift in my opinion - after all many people find the 1.5 perfectly satisfactory and that has virtually no torque.
Other than that, I noticed the damping was a slight downgrade (the top-of-the-line over here used to be on Bilsteins, the new one isn't), a bit more plush but less controlled, while the biggest upgrade (by far - more than the engine) was the few centimeters of horizontal adjustment you now have in the steering wheel. It also had a rear-view camera (nice but not essential and a pretty ugly blemish on the bumper) and a TFT (rather than LCD) trip computer (looks slightly prettier, functionally very little difference). I also found the steering slightly heavier, which felt artificial and wasn't an improvement. In summary, it's clearly the better car, but by a very small margin (5%?). Any journalist which pretends this is finally 'fixing' the ND really has no clue (sorry Pistonheads)...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff