RE: Mazda MX-5 (NC) | PH Used Review

[buccal]

Good thread.

I bought my NC 3 months ago after being knocked off my bike.

I needed a daily at short notice and decided I wanted a facelift sport so went for the cheapest reasonable mileage car I could find. Had planned to run it over summer and then move it on.

However, I really like it. I had an NA way back and then a NB new in 2001 (which I didn’t really get on with). Although I agree the engine isn’t particularly charismatic ( I have a V8 for the weekends) it’s way better than the NA or NC.
I fit better, it’s has a little bit more oomph and as a daily heated seats and a decent boot etc make it perfect.

I was at the MX5 restorer at the weekend and they were telling me that the MK3 is much better than the NA/NB rust wise (albeit it’s a younger car) so I’m booked for the usual under-seal.

The man maths are starting to kick in particularly when everyone keeps saying how much difference the manifold etc make. So I’m in two minds whether to keep it standard or to upgrade as each component starts to wear out.
My springs are a bit crusty so there’s the first excuse to upgrade.....

Any recommendations for most cost effective mods in terms of character/drivability?

I’m assuming 30mm springs and maybe the base BBR180/ roddisons upgrade?

However, I keep flirting with just getting Boxster if I’m spending another 3-4 on the NC. But as a daily a Boxster is probably overkill and I don’t want unnecessary bills.

Really interested in the comparisons with an Elise. It’s been on my bucket list for a while but I’m not sure it’s ideal for me as a daily and am certainly not going to get one for 6-10k.

Edited by buccal on Wednesday 25th September 10:14

[CABC]

buccal said:

Any recommendations for most cost effective mods in terms of character/drivability?

I’m assuming 30mm springs and maybe the base BBR180/ roddisons upgrade?

However, I keep flirting with just getting Boxster if I’m spending another 3-4 on the NC. But as a daily a Boxster is probably overkill and I don’t want unnecessary bills.

Really interested in the comparisons with an Elise. It’s been on my bucket list for a while but I’m not sure it’s ideal for me as a daily and am certainly not going to get one for 6-10k.

Edited by buccal on Wednesday 25th September 10:14

Boxster less fun, (just bigger and heavier). superbly balanced and complete package obvs. Better tourer.
Elise is quite different, you must get one at some point.

More than springs, stretch to Meister coils. they'll give better handling and poise over stock.
i s/charged my last 5. next time i'm sticking to nasp mods for response and character as well as a few more ponies.
i don't regret the journey of charging (200bhp and lots low torque), but next time it'll be cams, breathing & map.

[Bone Rat]

CABC said:

buccal said:

Any recommendations for most cost effective mods in terms of character/drivability?

I’m assuming 30mm springs and maybe the base BBR180/ roddisons upgrade?

However, I keep flirting with just getting Boxster if I’m spending another 3-4 on the NC. But as a daily a Boxster is probably overkill and I don’t want unnecessary bills.

Really interested in the comparisons with an Elise. It’s been on my bucket list for a while but I’m not sure it’s ideal for me as a daily and am certainly not going to get one for 6-10k.

Edited by buccal on Wednesday 25th September 10:14

Boxster less fun, (just bigger and heavier). superbly balanced and complete package obvs. Better tourer.
Elise is quite different, you must get one at some point.

More than springs, stretch to Meister coils. they'll give better handling and poise over stock.
i s/charged my last 5. next time i'm sticking to nasp mods for response and character as well as a few more ponies.
i don't regret the journey of charging (200bhp and lots low torque), but next time it'll be cams, breathing & map.

The wife and I are in a fortunate situation, we have a number of this type of vehicle between us. I have a 1.8 NC 3.5 and a 150 bhp Caterham, she has a Cayman 718 and keeps being given a Boxster when it goes in for servicing.

The Boxster was obviously more powerful but the clutch rendered it unusable for us it was so heavy. The buffeting and wind noise above 60 was exactly the same as the MX5 that is noisy and wearing. Really couldn't use it roof down for a long period say on a motorway commute. Why get deafened for £30k more

The MX5 is generally excellent, it's non turbo and can be well used without stupid speeds, reliable and not expensive to run in contrast to Porsche bits and servicing. The retractable hard top may not be for purists but it is quieter and seems more secure.

The Caterham uses a very similar engine and gearbox but half the weight, it's far more an out and out performance car but it is punishing on a long drive (150 ml) and requires special clothing, ear protection and mindset.

The 1.8 is slower than the 2.0, I tend to regard it as a successor to my stepdads MGB (used in 70s not a recent classic thing), nice to be in on a summers evening...

[SydneySE]

buccal said:

Good thread.

I bought my NC 3 months ago after being knocked off my bike.

I needed a daily at short notice and decided I wanted a facelift sport so went for the cheapest reasonable mileage car I could find. Had planned to run it over summer and then move it on.

However, I really like it. I had an NA way back and then a NB new in 2001 (which I didn’t really get on with). Although I agree the engine isn’t particularly charismatic ( I have a V8 for the weekends) it’s way better than the NA or NC.
I fit better, it’s has a little bit more oomph and as a daily heated seats and a decent boot etc make it perfect.

I was at the MX5 restorer at the weekend and they were telling me that the MK3 is much better than the NA/NB rust wise (albeit it’s a younger car) so I’m booked for the usual under-seal.

The man maths are starting to kick in particularly when everyone keeps saying how much difference the manifold etc make. So I’m in two minds whether to keep it standard or to upgrade as each component starts to wear out.
My springs are a bit crusty so there’s the first excuse to upgrade.....

Any recommendations for most cost effective mods in terms of character/drivability?

I’m assuming 30mm springs and maybe the base BBR180/ roddisons upgrade?

However, I keep flirting with just getting Boxster if I’m spending another 3-4 on the NC. But as a daily a Boxster is probably overkill and I don’t want unnecessary bills.

Really interested in the comparisons with an Elise. It’s been on my bucket list for a while but I’m not sure it’s ideal for me as a daily and am certainly not going to get one for 6-10k.

Edited by buccal on Wednesday 25th September 10:14

I've had an NA MX-5 in the past, and also a 986 boxter S. The boxter was my daily when I first moved to the UK, and for one year I drove it daily between SW1 (Central London) and Cranfield University in Milton Keynes. I was doing an average of 130miles a DAY 5-6 days per week. I bough the car with 60K miles, and literally the first month in, I had to change a wheel bearing (back). Common issue at 60-80K apparently. I changed the two rear wheel bearings myself (they cost about £30 each). Apart from that, just regular oil & filter changes. One of the most reliable cars I've had. As a drive, I firmly believe you need to spend BIG money to get a better experience.

Rather than "doing up" an MX-5, the Boxster S is on a different level; buy one if you can (mine was a Y reg, with clear lights, which look better than the ambers).

[Tumpend]

I liked my 2014 NC 3.5 but had super 200 conversion done by BBR (207 bhp) and now I love it. I have been using any excuse to give it a blast. Went to Sainsburys to do a shop for the wife and drove to the store 10 miles further away 😂
Its brilliant !

[pixelmix]

RenesisEvo said:

pixelmix said:

What are thoughts on the soft top vs folding hard top? Is the lower weight of the former noticeable?

I think for most people, it isn't. I own an early NC, having driven various, with softop and removable hardtop. If I was to buy another NC, I'd probably settle for the convenience of the powered folding roof. 99% of the time the added weight is irrelevant (and even on track I don't think I'd notice vs a passenger/no passenger). The added comfort and isolation of the fixed roof brings a lot more. I find mine too noisy with the soft-top only for longer runs - a recent drive to Wales I had the hardtop on to make it bearable. Admittedly my car doesn't have the later drainage holes with the flaps and foam to reduce the noise being piped into the cabin, it might be better then. Roof-down its irrelevant, you can't hear much above 60 whatever you do. Admittedly if I was in the market for an ND, I'd probably take the soft-top, I'm not sold on the RF (but I've never tried that version).

Usual MX-5 caveats - rust, wheel geometry, rust. But also bushes and dampers - I refreshed both and the change was transformative. Older/leggier cars are likely to need these replaced, otherwise could feel a bit mediocre, or worse.

Thanks. Good to know that there isn't really a noticeable performance/handling compromise. This opens up the market a lot - I'd rather have a 3.5 2.0NC and soft tops in that spec are pretty rare.

[TheJimi]

SydneySE said:

I've had an NA MX-5 in the past, and also a 986 boxter S. The boxter was my daily when I first moved to the UK, and for one year I drove it daily between SW1 (Central London) and Cranfield University in Milton Keynes. I was doing an average of 130miles a DAY 5-6 days per week. I bough the car with 60K miles, and literally the first month in, I had to change a wheel bearing (back). Common issue at 60-80K apparently. I changed the two rear wheel bearings myself (they cost about £30 each). Apart from that, just regular oil & filter changes. One of the most reliable cars I've had. As a drive, I firmly believe you need to spend BIG money to get a better experience.

Rather than "doing up" an MX-5, the Boxster S is on a different level; buy one if you can (mine was a Y reg, with clear lights, which look better than the ambers).

A Boxster could easily fling a bill at you to the tune of a decent MX5.

Two very different propositions, imo.

[greenarrow]

Bone Rat said:

CABC said:

buccal said:

The buffeting and wind noise above 60 was exactly the same as the MX5 that is noisy and wearing. Really couldn't use it roof down for a long period say on a motorway commute. Why get deafened for £30k more

...

Interesting you mention the wind noise and buffeting was noisy and wearing above 60. I owned an NB for 2 and a half years and sometimes used it for my commute from Dorset to Dorking (about 100 miles) which was mostly dual carriageways and motorways. I frequently did the journey with roof down and cruising at 80MPH + I never found the buffeting too bad tbh.

Returning to the NC, the article doesn't mention the low oil level problems which can affect earlier cars. in fact its probably the only MX5 where the engine is less than bomb-proof.

Quite a capable car however. Car Magazine ran a Car of the year track day article in 2009 where much to their surprise a Mk3.5 2 litre model lapped faster than a Clio 197 Cup. Pretty impressive considering the power deficit and its not like the MX5 is that much lighter than the Clio.

[anonymous-user]

greenarrow said:

Quite a capable car however. Car Magazine ran a Car of the year track day article in 2009 where much to their surprise a Mk3.5 2 litre model lapped faster than a Clio 197 Cup. Pretty impressive considering the power deficit and its not like the MX5 is that much lighter than the Clio.

That doesn't surprise, my experience is that the RWD MX5 with it's excellent weight balance, low CoG, sophisticated proper suspension, and focus on low unsprung weight flows and carries momentum in a way that a hot hatch with 18"/19" heavy wheels thumping around on the end of stty McPherson struts and maybe a torsion beam rear wouldn't recognise. The chassis setup on the MX5 is easily the most sophisticated available at the price, and that pays off if you care to exploit it.

[WJNB]

. As a drive, I firmly believe you need to spend BIG money to get a better experience.

What utter tosh although we all have different interpretations of "better experience". The expenditure of "big money" is usually more about ego & showing off.
Have owned & been a passenger in many many cars over the years from £100 sheds to £1m supercars & I'm sorry but my best experience was most certainly NOT in a +£30k car. The worse was in a AM DB4 GT & an E Type, both an utter pain on long journeys - a pose yes but no more.
A Mk1 MX-5 has been head & shoulders above everything in terms of pure al fresco fun a "better experience", more enjoyment & less worry than 1960's classic sports cars that came before. A Honda 2000 & a Boxster were just too bulky & lumpen in real world UK driving conditions.
There is absolutely no need whatsoever to spend BIG money unless your first priority is making a statement.

[Blayney]

Tumpend said:

I liked my 2014 NC 3.5 but had super 200 conversion done by BBR (207 bhp) and now I love it. I have been using any excuse to give it a blast. Went to Sainsburys to do a shop for the wife and drove to the store 10 miles further away ??
Its brilliant !

The 200 is with cams yes? How aggressive are they? I daily mine as previously mentioned. Haven't thought about the super 200 as I want the car to remain easy to live with. Much change in fuel use? (I'm getting just shy of 35mpg at the moment)

[greenarrow]

stickleback123 said:

greenarrow said:

Quite a capable car however. Car Magazine ran a Car of the year track day article in 2009 where much to their surprise a Mk3.5 2 litre model lapped faster than a Clio 197 Cup. Pretty impressive considering the power deficit and its not like the MX5 is that much lighter than the Clio.

That doesn't surprise, my experience is that the RWD MX5 with it's excellent weight balance, low CoG, sophisticated proper suspension, and focus on low unsprung weight flows and carries momentum in a way that a hot hatch with 18"/19" heavy wheels thumping around on the end of stty McPherson struts and maybe a torsion beam rear wouldn't recognise. The chassis setup on the MX5 is easily the most sophisticated available at the price, and that pays off if you care to exploit it.

Indeed and despite all the moaning at EVO magazine and the like at how soft and wallowy the ND supposedly is out of the box, the lap times I saw for the original 2 litre ND are pretty good too - lapping in similar time to a Fiesta MK7 ST, again despite a significant power and torque deficit.

[anonymous-user]

greenarrow said:

Indeed and despite all the moaning at EVO magazine and the like at how soft and wallowy the ND supposedly is out of the box, the lap times I saw for the original 2 litre ND are pretty good too - lapping in similar time to a Fiesta MK7 ST, again despite a significant power and torque deficit.

st journalism like that is in no small part responsible for the crashing ineptitude displayed by so many modern cars to make these prats write about how "sporty" and "positive" they feel, when a softer but well damped setup would be both significantly more comfortable and much faster when you really are going at it.

[buccal]

Blayney said:

The 200 is with cams yes? How aggressive are they? I daily mine as previously mentioned. Haven't thought about the super 200 as I want the car to remain easy to live with. Much change in fuel use? (I'm getting just shy of 35mpg at the moment)

Also interested in this, esp as there is a bit of a jump cost wise between the 185 and the 200.

(Thanks for all the replies re Boxster advice, lots to think about).

[Highway Star]

buccal said:

I fit better

I've been wondering about this, I'm thinking of looking at NC MX-5s to buy over the winter as a third car for commuting and daily duties when next spring rolls around. I'd been looking at Abarth 124s but can't justify the price until they get around £10k or so which might be another couple of years off, so a NC might be a good stop-gap, or maybe a keeper if I really like it.

I've looked at NAs before many years ago but haven't fitted - I hope NCs are more roomy? I'm just under 6'3'' and 14 stone so not really even PH size.

Rust issues don't put me off, I've owned Alfa Spiders, Fiat Coupes and first gen SLKs!

[Jimmy Recard]

Highway Star said:

I've been wondering about this, I'm thinking of looking at NC MX-5s to buy over the winter as a third car for commuting and daily duties when next spring rolls around. I'd been looking at Abarth 124s but can't justify the price until they get around £10k or so which might be another couple of years off, so a NC might be a good stop-gap, or maybe a keeper if I really like it.

I've looked at NAs before many years ago but haven't fitted - I hope NCs are more roomy? I'm just under 6'3'' and 14 stone so not really even PH size.

Rust issues don't put me off, I've owned Alfa Spiders, Fiat Coupes and first gen SLKs!

I'm a similar size to you and fit comfortably in my NC. Not so much in an NA or NB

[Bone Rat]

greenarrow said:

Bone Rat said:

CABC said:

buccal said:

The buffeting and wind noise above 60 was exactly the same as the MX5 that is noisy and wearing. Really couldn't use it roof down for a long period say on a motorway commute. Why get deafened for £30k more

...

Interesting you mention the wind noise and buffeting was noisy and wearing above 60. I owned an NB for 2 and a half years and sometimes used it for my commute from Dorset to Dorking (about 100 miles) which was mostly dual carriageways and motorways. I frequently did the journey with roof down and cruising at 80MPH + I never found the buffeting too bad tbh.

Returning to the NC, the article doesn't mention the low oil level problems which can affect earlier cars. in fact its probably the only MX5 where the engine is less than bomb-proof.

Quite a capable car however. Car Magazine ran a Car of the year track day article in 2009 where much to their surprise a Mk3.5 2 litre model lapped faster than a Clio 197 Cup. Pretty impressive considering the power deficit and its not like the MX5 is that much lighter than the Clio.

Hi, I suspect part of my problem is that I also have to wear hearing aids, in retrospect teenage Zeppelin and Sabbath at high vol may not have been the best idea tends to exacerbate the issue

[Highway Star]

Jimmy Recard said:

I'm a similar size to you and fit comfortably in my NC. Not so much in an NA or NB

Great - thanks!

[FestivAli]

pixelmix said:

What are thoughts on the soft top vs folding hard top? Is the lower weight of the former noticeable?

Hi I hope this helps. My dad had an 08 2.0 RC and I recently had a 07 2.0 Roadster (LE). I think hardtop is the way to go. On long drives the wind noise at the top of the windscreen roof up is really annoying and killed the car for me (primarily when I drive I do big country trips but anything over 80 kph and the wind noise roof up is terrible - roof down windows up though it was fine so good when its not raining. I never recall this being an issue when I borrowed dads RC

[R400TVR]

Petrolsmasher said:

Whats the difference in sound between a mx5 and a fiesta st, both 4 pots but ones turboed, did the mx5 or st sound better.

Did I really just read this on PH? If you are questioning which will be more fun between a front drove shopping trolley and a rwd sports car, please delete your membership now.