RE: 2022 Mazda MX-5 (ND) | PH Review
Discussion
TREMAiNE said:
I presume these have electric steering and not hydraulic?
If that's the case, how much feel do these really have? I had an NA and loved it, but it was nowhere as communicative as some people think they are.
I'd really like an ND, on paper it's perfect, but I can't help but feel that the steering will feel a bit vague and unresponsive, even if the chassis itself is well sorted.
It's far from vague and unresponsive, it's as accurate and predictable as the NA but it's pretty devoid of feel as all modern cars are. There is a great post around somewhere from max_torque explaining that the absence of feel from modern cars is not just EPAS, it's stiff modern tyres with no sidewall so there isn't really anything to feel because the tyre isn't squishing around and sliding much.If that's the case, how much feel do these really have? I had an NA and loved it, but it was nowhere as communicative as some people think they are.
I'd really like an ND, on paper it's perfect, but I can't help but feel that the steering will feel a bit vague and unresponsive, even if the chassis itself is well sorted.
cidered77 said:
on the handbrake thing - has any human being (who has any even remote interest in cars) ever in the history of the world ever ever said "ooo, i wish this car had one of those annoying handbrake buttons that activate either with a press, or a pull (but always the opposite of what you assume) and either does or does not automatically switch itself off when you move forward... rather than this nice handle i can also use to do the occasional skid"....?
I have a manual handbrake in the 370Z/M4...but truthfully I'm now at an age where they both may as well have an electric handbrake to be fair. I reckon the last time that I did a handbrake turn was about 30 years ago! I did think that handbrake turns were cool in my late teens though.
Even when I used to slide a car around quite regularly, I would only use the revs and just dump the clutch rather than pulling the handbrake up.
cerb4.5lee said:
cidered77 said:
on the handbrake thing - has any human being (who has any even remote interest in cars) ever in the history of the world ever ever said "ooo, i wish this car had one of those annoying handbrake buttons that activate either with a press, or a pull (but always the opposite of what you assume) and either does or does not automatically switch itself off when you move forward... rather than this nice handle i can also use to do the occasional skid"....?
I have a manual handbrake in the 370Z/M4...but truthfully I'm now at an age where they both may as well have an electric handbrake to be fair. I reckon the last time that I did a handbrake turn was about 30 years ago! I did think that handbrake turns were cool in my late teens though.
Even when I used to slide a car around quite regularly, I would only use the revs and just dump the clutch rather than pulling the handbrake up.
Back in the real world it's super important if you are driving along and then realise you forgot your lunch on the way to work...quick handbrake turn, and back you go home. Especially if you're in a FWD car.
Om said:
Which spoon reviewed this? Compact sports car is too small, has manual rather than electric controls and the small engined version that revs to heaven with 0-60 in under 8.5s is considered glacial... When the reviewer becomes the story then...
and interesting question is "how slow is too slow"....20 years ago, 8.5 would be absolutely fine - today, whereas i *completely get* the concept of low mass, low power and low grip = fun (owned MX5s before and loved them), there is a cut off point where the lack of power is just annoying and sometimes - e.g. pulling onto the A34 on several really sketchy slip roads - even a little dangerous.
generally for me i look for sub 8 seconds even for the family car, then i know it won't be a pain in the arse. You need that in order to keep up with modern cars, and be able to overtake without stress, pull onto motorways/dual carriageways without a second thought, etc
When i did read the article i didn't bother to check the figures of the 1.5, and assumed from the text it was 10 seconds + tho..... so agree not the best writing i've seen on PH.
This reviewer...
"If both have arrived with a beverage, you’ll have already exceeded the car’s capacity to accommodate cups."
Yes a very important metric. Also wrong. The ND has 2x removable cup holders that can be placed and removed as you require.
- wants an electric handbrake?
- Small light sports car too small
- MX-5 too slow - haha yes I know I own two and it doesn't make them any less fun than my TT
"If both have arrived with a beverage, you’ll have already exceeded the car’s capacity to accommodate cups."
Yes a very important metric. Also wrong. The ND has 2x removable cup holders that can be placed and removed as you require.
- wants an electric handbrake?
- Small light sports car too small
- MX-5 too slow - haha yes I know I own two and it doesn't make them any less fun than my TT
leakymanifold said:
cerb4.5lee said:
cidered77 said:
on the handbrake thing - has any human being (who has any even remote interest in cars) ever in the history of the world ever ever said "ooo, i wish this car had one of those annoying handbrake buttons that activate either with a press, or a pull (but always the opposite of what you assume) and either does or does not automatically switch itself off when you move forward... rather than this nice handle i can also use to do the occasional skid"....?
I have a manual handbrake in the 370Z/M4...but truthfully I'm now at an age where they both may as well have an electric handbrake to be fair. I reckon the last time that I did a handbrake turn was about 30 years ago! I did think that handbrake turns were cool in my late teens though.
Even when I used to slide a car around quite regularly, I would only use the revs and just dump the clutch rather than pulling the handbrake up.
Back in the real world it's super important if you are driving along and then realise you forgot your lunch on the way to work...quick handbrake turn, and back you go home. Especially if you're in a FWD car.
It is weird how I've changed, because years ago it didn't matter if the car ate through clutches/tyres when I was having fun(in my 200SX especially). Whereas now I seem quite precious about tyres etc, and the last time that I went fully sideways out of a junction was back in 2013 in the E92 M3!
I reckon that I should hand my PistonHeads card in now to be honest!
cidered77 said:
Om said:
Which spoon reviewed this? Compact sports car is too small, has manual rather than electric controls and the small engined version that revs to heaven with 0-60 in under 8.5s is considered glacial... When the reviewer becomes the story then...
generally for me i look for sub 8 seconds even for the family car, then i know it won't be a pain in the arse. You need that in order to keep up with modern cars, and be able to overtake without stress, pull onto motorways/dual carriageways without a second thought, etc TREMAiNE said:
I presume these have electric steering and not hydraulic?
If that's the case, how much feel do these really have? I had an NA and loved it, but it was nowhere as communicative as some people think they are.
I'd really like an ND, on paper it's perfect, but I can't help but feel that the steering will feel a bit vague and unresponsive, even if the chassis itself is well sorted.
You will be disappointed. Had a NA then NC, then test the upgrade 2.0 ND.If that's the case, how much feel do these really have? I had an NA and loved it, but it was nowhere as communicative as some people think they are.
I'd really like an ND, on paper it's perfect, but I can't help but feel that the steering will feel a bit vague and unresponsive, even if the chassis itself is well sorted.
ND steering feel very light, still get some feedback but very “filtered”. If you can get over the steering feel the ND is better than the NC in many way, much like a high quality built NA.
cidered77 said:
and interesting question is "how slow is too slow"....
...generally for me i look for sub 8 seconds even for the family car, then i know it won't be a pain in the arse. You need that in order to keep up with modern cars, and be able to overtake without stress, pull onto motorways/dual carriageways without a second thought, etc
I don't want to sound like I am having a go at the above poster, but my Skoda Fabia 1.2 has 69bhp, weighs about 75kg more than the ND 1.5 (and does 0-60 in about 15s apparently) yet is more than capable of keeping up/ahead of the majority of modern cars and of overtaking with ease if someone is dawdling on the country lanes. I wouldn't give a moments thought when pulling onto a motorway or dual carriageway. You just need to look ahead, be in the correct gear for the situation and be prepared to rev the engine. The advent of 2 ton soundproofed behemoths with diesel like torquey turbo engines and a reluctance to change down does seem to have skewed people's expectations of how to cover ground apace and the manner in which you can do it....generally for me i look for sub 8 seconds even for the family car, then i know it won't be a pain in the arse. You need that in order to keep up with modern cars, and be able to overtake without stress, pull onto motorways/dual carriageways without a second thought, etc
NGK210 said:
It's disappointing that there's an underlying tone of contempt in this article, for what is a purpose-built RWD sports car with 'lightweighting' at the core of its design.
Meanwhile, PH seems to be devoting ever-increasing bandwidth to SUVs. Oh dear.
I totally agree, it's a terrible review, mostly missing the point. And the 1.5 should not be dismissed either In many ways with low running costs, emissions, fuels consumption and it's balance and ability to be driven using all 7400revs almost all the time, it's a more relevant sports car.Meanwhile, PH seems to be devoting ever-increasing bandwidth to SUVs. Oh dear.
Om said:
I don't want to sound like I am having a go at the above poster, but my Skoda Fabia 1.2 has 69bhp, weighs about 75kg more than the ND 1.5 (and does 0-60 in about 15s apparently) yet is more than capable of keeping up/ahead of the majority of modern cars and of overtaking with ease if someone is dawdling on the country lanes. I wouldn't give a moments thought when pulling onto a motorway or dual carriageway. You just need to look ahead, be in the correct gear for the situation and be prepared to rev the engine. The advent of 2 ton soundproofed behemoths with diesel like torquey turbo engines and a reluctance to change down does seem to have skewed people's expectations of how to cover ground apace and the manner in which you can do it.
Agree completely.I like a powerful car as much as the next person, but when I drive my 92bhp soot chucker shed hatchback I'm going faster than 99,999 of every 100,000 cars I encounter, I am far more likely to have to brake than accelerate further to join at the end of a sliproad, and if I can't safely perform an overtake in it then it's an overtake that probably shouldn't be made.
Almost everyone on the roads drives like an old woman, I think I could be in a Morris 1000 and still be the fastest person around most of the time.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 10th May 15:31
The reviewer says he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between this new version and the last unless he drove both back-to-back. But he's clearly so disinterested he couldnt be bothered to seek out a previous version and do just that.
As this was the only update to the car, it makes this a pointless review. Come on guys, put a bit of effort in, you can do better.
As this was the only update to the car, it makes this a pointless review. Come on guys, put a bit of effort in, you can do better.
frontsplitter said:
NGK210 said:
It's disappointing that there's an underlying tone of contempt in this article, for what is a purpose-built RWD sports car with 'lightweighting' at the core of its design.
Meanwhile, PH seems to be devoting ever-increasing bandwidth to SUVs. Oh dear.
I totally agree, it's a terrible review, mostly missing the point. And the 1.5 should not be dismissed either In many ways with low running costs, emissions, fuels consumption and it's balance and ability to be driven using all 7400revs almost all the time, it's a more relevant sports car.Meanwhile, PH seems to be devoting ever-increasing bandwidth to SUVs. Oh dear.
Keano81 said:
I have a lovely NC but i am so glad they kept the hand operated hood. It is one of the very best features of this car
It is a very clever piece of design. It's funny reading about convertibles having electric hoods and the reviews marveling at being able to open or close in 12/15 or whatever seconds the MX5 is up or down in literally 2 seconds.cerb4.5lee said:
I remember reading a few reviews when this generation of MX-5 first came out, and a lot of them said that the 1.5 version was the sweet spot as you say. However I would still personally go for the 2.0 model though.
The initial 2.0 engine was a bit meh, the story is that Mazda did a load of work on the 1.5 to make it revvy and fun and then the Americans pointed out that a 1.5 isn't enough when you and your wife potentially add 50% to the mass of the car, so they put the 2.0 in largely unchanged from the Mazda 3. Loads of them buy their MX5s with a f
king auto though, which tells you everything you need to know.For the 2019 MY updates they went over the 2.0 in the same way they'd already done with the 1.5 (reduce weight of pistons and rods, improve breathing, the usual NASP tuning stuff) and now it revs as freely and is as sweet as the 1.5.
If you're comparing the early cars I can totally see why you'd buy the 1.5 over the 2.0, but it's hard to make an argument for the 1.5, outside of costs, over the improved 2.0.
When I was shopping in 2019 the basic 1.5 was a really cheap car; I think they offered me a brand new one for £15k-£16k which is fantastic value given the engineering you get.
stickleback123 said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I remember reading a few reviews when this generation of MX-5 first came out, and a lot of them said that the 1.5 version was the sweet spot as you say. However I would still personally go for the 2.0 model though.
The initial 2.0 engine was a bit meh, the story is that Mazda did a load of work on the 1.5 to make it revvy and fun and then the 'mericans pointed out that a 1.5 isn't enough when you and your wife add 50% to the mass of the car so they put the 2.0 in largely unchanged from the Mazda 3. For the 2019 MY updates they went over the 2.0 in the same way they'd already done with the 1.5 (reduce weight of pistons and rods, improve breathing, the usual NASP tuning stuff) and now it revs as freely and is as sweet as the 1.5.
If you're comparing the early cars I can totally see why you'd buy the 1.5 over the 2.0, but it's hard to make an argument for the 1.5, outside of costs, over the improved 2.0.
When I was shopping in 2019 the basic 1.5 was a really cheap car; I think they offered me a brand new one for £15k-£16k which is fantastic value given the engineering you get.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff