Mazda MX5. Beyond criticism?

[white_goodman]

I know the MX5 is well regarded on PH. My dad is thinking about getting one (probably a late mk2 or early mk3) and asked for my advice. I really wanted to suggest something else, not because I don't like MX5s (I have owned one) but because it seems to be the default choice for that type of car. However, I can't really think of a good reason for not buying one over something else for instance:

MGF: mid-engined and hydragas suspension make it interesting and I like the idea of owning an MG but patchy build quality and HG issues.

MR2: no boot
old Alfa Spider: rust
new Alfa Spider: FWD and scuttle shake
barchetta: LHD only and FWD
Boxster: ugly and potentially unreliable
S2000: too peaky
Elise/Caterham: too expensive, too hardcore and tricky hood
Z3/SLK: I'm really partial to a straight-six Beemer but these are both saloon-based and therefore not really proper sports cars.

On the other hand, the MX5 is cheap to buy, run and insure, reliable, good-looking, well-built, comfortable, has an excellent hood design (and the option of a folding metal roof if you want it). Yes it's not that fast but neither does it pretend to be. In fact, it's totally fit for purpose. My MX5 (mk2) was not my favourite car that I have owned but the only criticism that I can come up with was that it either needed more power or less grip but that's just personal preference. For this reason, I would go for a mk1 next time (for less grip) or a mk3 for more power (although I would still prefer if it had a naturally-aspirated 200bhp). Having tried to suggest alternatives, I'm seriously tempted by another MX5 myself!

So taking subjectives (like styling and image) out of the equation, I think the hairdresser's car jibes about MX5s are wearing a bit thin now, are there any other cars that are totally fit for purpose and as a result difficult to criticise or even beyond criticism?

The MX5 is the most obvious one to me (I'm not going to knock it for being impractical, as it isn't really for that type of car), just like I wouldn't criticise a Land Rover Defender for being too slow.

Here are some more suggestions perhaps?

MkVI Golf, especially GTI - I don't mind Golfs actually. They may not be the most interesting choice but I can't think of a good reason for buying an Alfa Giulietta over one for instance. My only criticm might be that the GTI is quite expensive now.

Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W204) - Mercedes-Benz quality is now back to where it should be now apparently, the cars are better to drive and nothing else in its class can touch its image.

Skoda Yeti - As an interesting, decent-value family car, I can't really fault it.

Porsche 911

Range Rover?

Honda Accord?

Volvo V70?

So putting personal preferences aside, are there any more cars that you find it difficult to criticise?

[Altrezia]

MX5 do rust, btw. Other than that they're pretty good.

Also, I've had three MX5s.. and prefer the Elise.

[psummers]

I don't think the mx5 is beyond criticism.

Someone seems to think so anyway:

http://community.evo.co.uk/users/Monkey-Harris/blo...

[Eighteeteewhy]

Recession White, s-line , tdi.

[Baryonyx]

MK2 MR2 boot pisses all over the MX5 boot.

Had an MR2 Turbo, preferred it to the MX5 I had before that. The MX5 was fun but I didn't like:

1) lack of air con
2) cramped interior (usually not something that bothers me too much)
3) keep fit windows
4) seats not all that comfortable
5) low power for fuel economy
6) rear wheel arch blistered shortly before I got rid of it

etc etc.

The MX5 is a fantastic car but it's not head and shoulders above the rest of the class. My MR2 was more fun, felt better built, more comfortable, faster and crucially, felt more special to drive. Every trip was an event and then some...

[ED209]

I have a eunos mk1, and have had a uk mk1 in the past.

Only thing i can moan about is that the mpg isnt great for a lightweight car with a lowish owered engine.

[Matt UK]

For what they do and the price they do it at, the MX5 has very few natural rivals - hence the reason they've sold so many of the beggers.

[Prawo Jazdy]

Poor mpg relative to performance/weight is the main one i'd suggest. Followed shortly by lack of space for anyone over about 5'10.

It isn't beyond criticism, and anyone who thinks it is is being blinkered IMHO.

ETA: Placing the MX5 ahead of an S2000 because the latter is too 'peaky' is a bit odd. Both require you to use all the rev range available if you want to access the performance on offer.

Edited by Prawo Jazdy on Monday 23 July 18:36

[gowmonster]

Z4?

mx5 engines are pretty bullet proof, but rust on the sills and rear arches is an issue, the boot seal is prone to go also, leaving a wet boot/rusty lid.

As above. fuel economy isn't the best for the power.

[cptsideways]

Noisy with the roof up, really uneconomical for what it is & slow, apart from that they are great for what they are. Ie a cheap roadster that works well & does what it says on the tin. They make great race cars too.

[Rollcage]

The Z3 isn't based on a saloon, for one thing (Though it's based on an E36 platform).

MX5's are great to drive, but can rust and aren't massively quick, and there isn't a trade off in economy. You won't get Elise type economy out of one easily. I'm also not hugely keen on the rather floppy dash panels of the early cars.

Still had a couple though!

[Mr Happy]

Lotus Elan (not the Isuzu based one, the proper one)

The car the MX5 copied, plus you have that badge and provenance, and *that* engine...

Not cheap, but it's a classic and if looked after, the value will only go one way.

[speedtwelve]

Prawo Jazdy said:

ETA: Placing the MX5 ahead of an S2000 because the latter is too 'peaky' is a bit odd. Both require you to use all the rev range available if you want to access the performance on offer.

This, having owned a Eunos Mk1 S-Spec (pretty much rust-free, and with aircon and power windows incidentally.) and an S2k. The MX5 was completely performance-free unless you revved the nuts off it. In the S2000 it was possible to make 'normal' progress in traffic without VTECing it in every gear.

Agree with Baronyx that an MR2T is a more complete car. Other than the storage issue I'd also place my current Mk3 MR2 as a better driver's car than any iteration of MX5 having driven all 3 marks of Toyota and Mazda.

There's still lots to like about an MX5, though.

[Dave200]

white_goodman said:

MR2: no boot
old Alfa Spider: rust
new Alfa Spider: FWD and scuttle shake
barchetta: LHD only and FWD
Boxster: ugly and potentially unreliable
S2000: too peaky
Elise/Caterham: too expensive, too hardcore and tricky hood
Z3/SLK: I'm really partial to a straight-six Beemer but these are both saloon-based and therefore not really proper sports cars.

If you're going to be so critical about all of the other cars, then you should at least try to be objective about the MX5...
Based on my experience with an ex owning a 1.8iS mk2, despite being great fun to drive, the MX5 has:
- Gutless standard engine with no torque, and all the aural qualities of a sewing machine.
- No cabin space for such essentials as elbows and knees.
- No headroom.
- Useless gearing, that means you end up pulling 4k revs in top to cruise on the motorway.
- A pathetic fueltank which, combined with the above, makes any long journeys miserable.
- No sound insulation, and horrid road noise.
- Interior trim which showcases some of Japan's worst plastics.

Anything I've missed?

[Baryonyx]

speedtwelve said:

This, having owned a Eunos Mk1 S-Spec (pretty much rust-free, and with aircon and power windows incidentally.) and an S2k. The MX5 was completely performance-free unless you revved the nuts off it. In the S2000 it was possible to make 'normal' progress in traffic without VTECing it in every gear.

That said, I always loved wringing the MX5's neck. It positively thrived on being driven hard, and it was a fun game keeping it on the boil above 4000rpm, where it seemed to suddenly come on cam and pick up the pace!

[Vitorio]

Dave200 said:

If you're going to be so critical about all of the other cars, then you should at least try to be objective about the MX5...
Based on my experience with an ex owning a 1.8iS mk2, despite being great fun to drive, the MX5 has:
- Gutless standard engine with no torque, and all the aural qualities of a sewing machine.
- No cabin space for such essentials as elbows and knees.
- No headroom.
- Useless gearing, that means you end up pulling 4k revs in top to cruise on the motorway.
- A pathetic fueltank which, combined with the above, makes any long journeys miserable.
- No sound insulation, and horrid road noise.
- Interior trim which showcases some of Japan's worst plastics.

Anything I've missed?

I've been obsessed about getting an mx-5 since yesterday, spent all of today thinking about what alternatives im missing (cant think of anything, especially in the price range), and this is making me glum.

[300bhp/ton]

white_goodman said:

I know the MX5 is well regarded on PH. My dad is thinking about getting one (probably a late mk2 or early mk3) and asked for my advice. I really wanted to suggest something else, not because I don't like MX5s (I have owned one) but because it seems to be the default choice for that type of car. However, I can't really think of a good reason for not buying one over something else for instance:

MGF: mid-engined and hydragas suspension make it interesting and I like the idea of owning an MG but patchy build quality and HG issues.

MR2: no boot
old Alfa Spider: rust
new Alfa Spider: FWD and scuttle shake
barchetta: LHD only and FWD
Boxster: ugly and potentially unreliable
S2000: too peaky
Elise/Caterham: too expensive, too hardcore and tricky hood
Z3/SLK: I'm really partial to a straight-six Beemer but these are both saloon-based and therefore not really proper sports cars.

On the other hand, the MX5 is cheap to buy, run and insure, reliable, good-looking, well-built, comfortable, has an excellent hood design (and the option of a folding metal roof if you want it). Yes it's not that fast but neither does it pretend to be. In fact, it's totally fit for purpose. My MX5 (mk2) was not my favourite car that I have owned but the only criticism that I can come up with was that it either needed more power or less grip but that's just personal preference. For this reason, I would go for a mk1 next time (for less grip) or a mk3 for more power (although I would still prefer if it had a naturally-aspirated 200bhp). Having tried to suggest alternatives, I'm seriously tempted by another MX5 myself!

So taking subjectives (like styling and image) out of the equation, I think the hairdresser's car jibes about MX5s are wearing a bit thin now, are there any other cars that are totally fit for purpose and as a result difficult to criticise or even beyond criticism?

The MX5 is the most obvious one to me (I'm not going to knock it for being impractical, as it isn't really for that type of car), just like I wouldn't criticise a Land Rover Defender for being too slow.

Here are some more suggestions perhaps?

MkVI Golf, especially GTI - I don't mind Golfs actually. They may not be the most interesting choice but I can't think of a good reason for buying an Alfa Giulietta over one for instance. My only criticm might be that the GTI is quite expensive now.

Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W204) - Mercedes-Benz quality is now back to where it should be now apparently, the cars are better to drive and nothing else in its class can touch its image.

Skoda Yeti - As an interesting, decent-value family car, I can't really fault it.

Porsche 911

Range Rover?

Honda Accord?

Volvo V70?

So putting personal preferences aside, are there any more cars that you find it difficult to criticise?

eh?

It['s easy to criticise an MX-5. It's a great car in many respects, but they rust and are a very middle ground on everything. Which in some respects makes them a tad dull.

[speedtwelve]

Baryonyx said:

speedtwelve said:

This, having owned a Eunos Mk1 S-Spec (pretty much rust-free, and with aircon and power windows incidentally.) and an S2k. The MX5 was completely performance-free unless you revved the nuts off it. In the S2000 it was possible to make 'normal' progress in traffic without VTECing it in every gear.

That said, I always loved wringing the MX5's neck. It positively thrived on being driven hard, and it was a fun game keeping it on the boil above 4000rpm, where it seemed to suddenly come on cam and pick up the pace!

Mine did seem to spend all of its time between 6-7000rpm. I found it part of the driver involvement, trying to screw performance out of it.

[Tyrewrecker]

Altrezia said:

MX5 do rust, btw. Other than that they're pretty good.

Also, I've had three MX5s.. and prefer the Elise.

How come? Just much prefer the rawness, quicker? MX5 predictability on oversteer makes it a winner with FI for me.

[Beeby]

I had a UK mark one and can confirm that they must certainly do rust. Big time. As other have said they do like a drink. I found my '92 1.6 far too slow. Funny thing is that it supposedly had the same bhp as my Toledo 1.9 Tdi but the Toledo is much much quicker. Handles brilliantly but I wouldn't get another.