A sportscar shouldn’t have...
Discussion
Lily the Pink said:
Looks like one, drives like one, is totally impractical for other purposes. Seems like one to me. Are you saying that the mx5 isn't a sportscast for the same reasons?
Neither of them I guess, I suppose the MX has far more history to it, the Fiat seems quite cynical, but that’s Italians for you. yonex said:
Lily the Pink said:
Looks like one, drives like one, is totally impractical for other purposes. Seems like one to me. Are you saying that the mx5 isn't a sportscast for the same reasons?
Neither of them I guess, I suppose the MX has far more history to it, the Fiat seems quite cynical, but that’s Italians for you. kiseca said:
It very much sounds like you're confusing "it isn't a sportscar" with "it's a sportscar that I don't like.".
Absolutely - but getting back to the thread title ... It's fair enough to say (though I wouldn't) that a sportscar shouldn't have a turbo - but silly (imo) to deny that cars such as the 124 or Boxster which do have a turbo are sportscars.bcr5784 said:
kiseca said:
It very much sounds like you're confusing "it isn't a sportscar" with "it's a sportscar that I don't like.".
Absolutely - but getting back to the thread title ... It's fair enough to say (though I wouldn't) that a sportscar shouldn't have a turbo - but silly (imo) to deny that cars such as the 124 or Boxster which do have a turbo are sportscars.And yes I know an F40 is a supercar, but IMO, while a sportscar doesn't have to be a supercar, a supercar must be a sportscar. But that's a different topic
kiseca said:
It very much sounds like you're confusing "it isn't a sportscar" with "it's a sportscar that I don't like.".
I’m not confused, it’s just my opinion. We had a new MX back in 2002/3, I thought my DC2 was a better, more interesting, faster, sweeter handling car in every way.yonex said:
I’m not confused, it’s just my opinion. We had a new MX back in 2002/3, I thought my DC2 was a better, more interesting, faster, sweeter handling car in every way.
Accepting that you prefer a DC2 to an MX5, that doesn't stop an MX5 being a sportscar - but we are still off topic (unless you are going to say a sportscar shouldn't have a Mazda badge!)bcr5784 said:
Accepting that you prefer a DC2 to an MX5, that doesn't stop an MX5 being a sportscar - but we are still off topic (unless you are going to say a sportscar shouldn't have a Mazda badge!)
I’m saying that the term ‘sports car’ is a bit s
t. The MX5 isn’t very quick, is a little dull tbh. Go drive an RX7 and say an MX is in any way the same genetics. yonex said:
kiseca said:
It very much sounds like you're confusing "it isn't a sportscar" with "it's a sportscar that I don't like.".
I’m not confused, it’s just my opinion. We had a new MX back in 2002/3, I thought my DC2 was a better, more interesting, faster, sweeter handling car in every way.It's not like Fiat set out to build a sportscar and then at the end the designers said oh whoops that's not a sportscar, it's an SUV!
kiseca said:
So back to my first question, then. If a 124 Spider / Mazda MX5 isn't a sportscar, what is it?
It's not like Fiat set out to build a sportscar and then at the end the designers said oh whoops that's not a sportscar, it's an SUV!
Something light, without a bunch of driver aids. Caterfields etc are the definition. Lotus also still get it right. Porsche, less so these days. All IMO, always reckoned the MX was overrated, all credit to Mazda and maybe the new one is great. It's not like Fiat set out to build a sportscar and then at the end the designers said oh whoops that's not a sportscar, it's an SUV!
yonex said:
kiseca said:
So back to my first question, then. If a 124 Spider / Mazda MX5 isn't a sportscar, what is it?
It's not like Fiat set out to build a sportscar and then at the end the designers said oh whoops that's not a sportscar, it's an SUV!
Something light, without a bunch of driver aids. Caterfields etc are the definition. Lotus also still get it right. Porsche, less so these days. All IMO, always reckoned the MX was overrated, all credit to Mazda and maybe the new one is great. It's not like Fiat set out to build a sportscar and then at the end the designers said oh whoops that's not a sportscar, it's an SUV!
I've never driven an MX5 but I've read quite a few times about people who really like the car and think it's great fun but they don't develop any kind of emotional attachment to it. And then those who simply don't get much fun out of it either. I can relate to your opinion of the car as it's not an uncommon one.
kiseca said:
yonex said:
kiseca said:
So back to my first question, then. If a 124 Spider / Mazda MX5 isn't a sportscar, what is it?
Something light, without a bunch of driver aids. Caterfields etc are the definition. Lotus also still get it right. Porsche, less so these days. All IMO, always reckoned the MX was overrated, all credit to Mazda and maybe the new one is great. I've never driven an MX5 but I've read quite a few times about people who really like the car and think it's great fun but they don't develop any kind of emotional attachment to it.
If you want to feel good about your driving and put fast laps in on track, buy a post 2004 Porsche 911 or 2006 Cayman. They are all spectacular sports cars that endow you with godlike ability without separating you from the action. However, if you genuinely want to work on yourself as a driver and build your skills, the mx-5 is money better spent.
Trying to get the rear end unstuck is not something you are going to spend time doing in an mx-5, the tail will wag more than a spaniel that's just been released for a walk. It's like driving with 200hp on Crossplys. The skill in the mx-5 is in trying not to slide, aproaching corners beyond the speed the tail will slide and learning, which type of slip will lead to an armfull of opposite lock and which you can bury the throttle on and still hold the line.
You'll need a lot of practice and not a lot of blinking to keep a proper sportscar honest behind an MX-5 but it is possible. It has a 300kg + weight advantage on a 987 Cayman and that means it can brake and change direction with a lot less inertia. Get it just right and it's possible to go surprisingly quickly in one and 'that' is the fun of it. Chasing that ever faster time, feeling that if you could just get it slightly cleaner, get the throttle on slightly sooner. It is speed earned, not given. You can't just expect to jump into one and be fast, I think that is what creates the bond between car and driver.
It is my impression that that is what it was designed for and that is not what the Fiat 124 was designed for. I think it is their intent that separates them and ig can be seen in any track comparison.
Edited by Niffty951 on Thursday 19th December 23:13
Niffty951 said:
I would guess from your description that they are referring to mk3 mx-5's.
On that point, I've heard it about Mk 1s to Mk 3s, not heard anyone say it about the current one. I'd need to drive one myself to get a personal opinion.But yeah, I just put that down to some people don't like the car, that happens of course, but none of what I've heard has ever made me doubt it's a sportscar. It might turn out to be one I don't gel with, it's not as stripped bare as a caterham (if that's the minimum standard for sportscar then it and the Atom are the only two ever made...) but the MX5 can't be anything else but a sportscar.
yonex said:
I’m not confused, it’s just my opinion. We had a new MX back in 2002/3, I thought my DC2 was a better, more interesting, faster, sweeter handling car in every way.
That's really interesting for this topic, as I'd agree that a DC2 smashes the MX5 for desirability and driving fun, however if you were to ask me whether I thought that the Integra was a Sportscar, I'd struggle to say "yes"Thing is, I don't know why.
Is it the FWDness? No
Is it the size? No
Is it the weight? No
Is it the engine? Hell no!!
Is it the roof? No
All that considered, it's more a hot hatch / coupe than a traditional sports car
Cotty said:
Can a sports car have three wheels?
They all should have 3 wheels. At least.But seriously, yes, there were a couple of 3 wheeler options available in the '80s that I would say are definitely sportscars, the Grinnall Scorpion being the only one I can remember the name of but it did have some competition
And then the Morgan 3 wheeler. That is, IMO, definitely a sportscar.
Unless 3 wheels means it's not a car at all
mat205125 said:
That's really interesting for this topic, as I'd agree that a DC2 smashes the MX5 for desirability and driving fun, however if you were to ask me whether I thought that the Integra was a Sportscar, I'd struggle to say "yes"
Thing is, I don't know why.
Is it the FWDness? No
Is it the size? No
Is it the weight? No
Is it the engine? Hell no!!
Is it the roof? No
All that considered, it's more a hot hatch / coupe than a traditional sports car
That’s my point. A Honda coupe is more of a ‘sports car’ than the MX5 imo. Thing is, I don't know why.
Is it the FWDness? No
Is it the size? No
Is it the weight? No
Is it the engine? Hell no!!
Is it the roof? No
All that considered, it's more a hot hatch / coupe than a traditional sports car
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff