RE: Mazda MX-5 1.5 (ND): PH Fleet
Discussion
Gad-Westy said:
Not sure it needs to be unassisted. The NA steering didn't suffer at all when PAS was fitted. In fact it arguably improved. That was hydraulic but I cannot see any fundamental reason why an EPS set up cannot offer similar feedback, unless it is a physical geometry issue.
The steering and the crap colour options are really the only things that stop be buying an ND.
Don't want to sound sexist but I presume you are a woman ?The steering and the crap colour options are really the only things that stop be buying an ND.
I've never bought a car based on colour...
justa1972 said:
Don't want to sound sexist but I presume you are a woman ?
I've never bought a car based on colour...
You should definitely try much harder if you really don't want to sound sexist I've never bought a car based on colour...
Most of the time colour isn't a huge priority but if I'm buying a new car, and maybe one that I'd keep indefinitely, then yes I would want to be able to specify the car exactly how I'd like it to be. Last time I checked options seemed to several shades of metallic mono or an okayish red and blue option. If the steering was better I might reluctantly accept the blue.
ash73 said:
Agree about the colours it's a s
t selection.
Yeah it is pretty limited, Orange available on the anniversary edition which is a shame as I just don't like orange but I am tempted by everything else about that car. I am sorely tempted to upgrade but the colour is putting me off.t selection.coppice said:
Not at all- there's plenty of cars with pas that have far more feel - even my wife's Yaris has better steering than my Mazda's . Of course I don't expect an exact replication of Elan steering - the lightweight MX 5 still weighs 50% more - but as the Lotus influence can be seen in many areas why in God's name did they make such a dismal attempt at replicating the Lotus USP ?
What wheels have you got? Tyres? If you aren't afraid of experimenting a bit, you could try to see if a bit more toe (toe-out for me) can improve this for you. Just mark where you where, then dial in a quarter turn each side and see what happens. Correct accordingly. I always do this and set a faily aggressive toe but not so much it starts eating tyres - this coincides with straight ahead losing precision as the tyres scrub.. (amount of toe depending on tyres, tyre pressure etc and thus never dialled in perfectly from factory).
Also my experience is that lighter wheels help steering feel, more rotating mass dumbs out the subtle clues...
Edited by Onehp on Wednesday 20th March 14:12
Mr-B said:
Yeah it is pretty limited, Orange available on the anniversary edition which is a shame as I just don't like orange but I am tempted by everything else about that car. I am sorely tempted to upgrade but the colour is putting me off.
Wrap it. Will conserve paint for next owner. And you get to choose any colour you like... clowesy said:
My girlfriend has a 1.5 pre-facelift. The engine is really sweet; much nicer nicer and more free revving than the 2.0 litre (pre-facelift anyway). It also sips fuel, which is an added bonus. It's a great car, shame I can't fit in it.
I've not driven the 1.5 and I'm not disputing that it is nice. But I struggle to believe it's vastly better than the 2.0, as the 2.0 litre is hardly an unpleasant engine, quite the opposite in fact.Onehp said:
What wheels have you got? Tyres?
If you aren't afraid of experimenting a bit, you could try to see if a bit more toe (toe-out for me) can improve this for you. Just mark where you where, then dial in a quarter turn each side and see what happens. Correct accordingly. I always do this and set a faily aggressive toe but not so much it starts eating tyres - this coincides with straight ahead losing precision as the tyres scrub.. (amount of toe depending on tyres, tyre pressure etc and thus never dialled in perfectly from factory).
Also my experience is that lighter wheels help steering feel, more rotating mass dumbs out the subtle clues...
I have the standard 17 inch wheels and have just changed to Michelin PS4s If you aren't afraid of experimenting a bit, you could try to see if a bit more toe (toe-out for me) can improve this for you. Just mark where you where, then dial in a quarter turn each side and see what happens. Correct accordingly. I always do this and set a faily aggressive toe but not so much it starts eating tyres - this coincides with straight ahead losing precision as the tyres scrub.. (amount of toe depending on tyres, tyre pressure etc and thus never dialled in perfectly from factory).
Also my experience is that lighter wheels help steering feel, more rotating mass dumbs out the subtle clues...
Edited by Onehp on Wednesday 20th March 14:12
coppice said:
I have the standard 17 inch wheels and have just changed to Michelin PS4s
Different car, but found the PSS gave a lot more feedback than PS4's. And if you don't fancy experimenting you could perhaps check alignment at a performance car specialist and if front wheels are dead straight, ask them to add as much toe out in front as they are willing to do. For me toe setting optimisation has always has given a worthwhile improvement in steering feedback. YMMV of course...
Edited by Onehp on Wednesday 20th March 21:17
Ref steering - The NA MX5 was designed from the outset to have Power Assisted Steering. It gives the best drive and feel.
The only reason manual racks were added was as a poverty/budget spec option, theres a reason that a JDM S-Special has PAS and a crappy UK Monza edition doesntt.
Many people have foolishly exchanged PAS racks for manual racks on track cars - the manual rack is slower.
The Mk1 steering was not perfect, but it was good.
On the ND, they have to use PAS obviously.
Again, it is not perfect, as many owners have picked up. But just remember to compare it to some of the other cars available these days, its pretty good in that context.
Finally - Geometry, as touched on up there. They are VERY sensitive to Geometry, and MX5s have proper, fully adjustable suspension all round (not just 'tracking').
Like the NC, I suspected most ND's come out the dealer, and are probably still set to a default, loosely toleranced suspension geometry setup. Mazda dealers won't adjust anything outside of the vague factory tolerances.
Get your car to a proper wheel alignment specialist, a bit of toe-out on front as suggest makes a big difference to the steering feel.
Back when I have Mk1s ad Mk2s I would have it checked and setup annually - even without making any component changes, normal driving, potholes etc can knock it out over time.
If I bought a 3 year old ND from Mazda then this would be the very first thing I did, no doubt. Its that important.
The only reason manual racks were added was as a poverty/budget spec option, theres a reason that a JDM S-Special has PAS and a crappy UK Monza edition doesntt.
Many people have foolishly exchanged PAS racks for manual racks on track cars - the manual rack is slower.
The Mk1 steering was not perfect, but it was good.
On the ND, they have to use PAS obviously.
Again, it is not perfect, as many owners have picked up. But just remember to compare it to some of the other cars available these days, its pretty good in that context.
Finally - Geometry, as touched on up there. They are VERY sensitive to Geometry, and MX5s have proper, fully adjustable suspension all round (not just 'tracking').
Like the NC, I suspected most ND's come out the dealer, and are probably still set to a default, loosely toleranced suspension geometry setup. Mazda dealers won't adjust anything outside of the vague factory tolerances.
Get your car to a proper wheel alignment specialist, a bit of toe-out on front as suggest makes a big difference to the steering feel.
Back when I have Mk1s ad Mk2s I would have it checked and setup annually - even without making any component changes, normal driving, potholes etc can knock it out over time.
If I bought a 3 year old ND from Mazda then this would be the very first thing I did, no doubt. Its that important.
It's a shame you're not testing it with the Mazda lowering kit (Eibachs). It makes a huge improvement to the handling without compromising the suppleness of the ride . I did 6 months with my 1.5/standard set up and was always underwhelmed with the handling, especially in the roundabouts, I've now done an additional 30 months 40,000 miles with the lowering kit installed, had no problems and now the roundabouts are the highlights of the commute. 
Considering the relatively low price of the install, it's a no-brainer.
Considering the relatively low price of the install, it's a no-brainer.Edited by np1 on Wednesday 20th March 17:02
300bhp/ton said:
clowesy said:
My girlfriend has a 1.5 pre-facelift. The engine is really sweet; much nicer nicer and more free revving than the 2.0 litre (pre-facelift anyway). It also sips fuel, which is an added bonus. It's a great car, shame I can't fit in it.
I've not driven the 1.5 and I'm not disputing that it is nice. But I struggle to believe it's vastly better than the 2.0, as the 2.0 litre is hardly an unpleasant engine, quite the opposite in fact.clowesy said:
I've driven both, and in my opinion the 2.0 (pre-facelift) is a poor engine. More torque and more muscular feeling from low engine speeds perhaps, but it has an unwillingness to rev which doesn't suit the car at all. I'd like to have a go of the facelift 2.0 litre engine as it seems to address exactly this problem.
I wonder if this is something only noticeable with side by side comparisons? In isolation I personally didn’t feel the 2.0 lacked the ability to rev, at least compared to other vehicles I’ve driven. I agree it did feel grunty. But I was genuinely impressed with how it went. I guess I need to go and test drive a 1.5 really.
300bhp/ton said:
I wonder if this is something only noticeable with side by side comparisons? In isolation I personally didn’t feel the 2.0 lacked the ability to rev, at least compared to other vehicles I’ve driven. I agree it did feel grunty. But I was genuinely impressed with how it went.
I guess I need to go and test drive a 1.5 really.
Possibly, but it might just be my perception and/or personal preferences when it comes to engines. We test drove the a 2.0 litre car for an afternoon first, and the 1.5 about a week later. The 2.0 was certainly quicker but I thought the rev-happy character of the smaller engine really suited the car. If the facelift 2.0 litre engine has that same character with more grunt then it must be brilliant.I guess I need to go and test drive a 1.5 really.
clowesy said:
Possibly, but it might just be my perception and/or personal preferences when it comes to engines. We test drove the a 2.0 litre car for an afternoon first, and the 1.5 about a week later. The 2.0 was certainly quicker but I thought the rev-happy character of the smaller engine really suited the car. If the facelift 2.0 litre engine has that same character with more grunt then it must be brilliant.
I test drive a 2.0 not long after launch. The salesman did say before we set off that I should drive the 1.5, but I said I’d like to drive the 2.0 litre first. Anyhow I took them on a somewhat spritited route. On returning to the dealership I said, should I try the 1.5 out too. To which the salesman reply. No, not the way you drive
To be fair though. I’m more used to V8 power delivery with my TR7 and Camaro. So maybe the 2.0 litre just suited more.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff