12k Folding Hardtop Convertibles (ie MX5 question!)
Discussion
Despite the obvious benefits I'm struggling to justify the price of an MX-5 Roadster Coupe-
An early but decent spec mk3 (so say 2006, 2.0, leather, option pack, 20k miles or less) is realistically 8k.
At that price the usual alternatives (Z4/ Boxster/ S2000) are- and I will generalise here as there are always exceptions which some smart arse will link to- older, low spec, with fairly big miles.
To get an MX5 with the folding tin top realistically they're a whacking 50% more at 12k, at which point those alternatives get a whole heap better, to the point where I think wtf would I spend 12k on an MX5 for when I could have a pretty decent Z4/ Boxster/ S2000.
Bascially;
- Has anyone got a Roadster Coupe and do you think it's worth the extra? They only cost £1200 more than the normal ones so why they've held out so strongly is a bit of a mystery to me... http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=297...
- Given the early ones are approaching 5 years old, is the roof likely to fail/ can I expect expensive problems?
- And aside from the horrors of an Eos/ Focus/ Astra/ Peugeot which I refuse to believe offer any sort of pleasurable drive, are there any other real alternatives with a folding roof?
Bristol by the way- that's the reason I'd prefer something solid when the car is left on the street, but ideally don't have to take the whole thing off after. Locals have no respect at all (saw a guy putting out his cigarette on a convertible Saab roof just last night....)
An early but decent spec mk3 (so say 2006, 2.0, leather, option pack, 20k miles or less) is realistically 8k.
At that price the usual alternatives (Z4/ Boxster/ S2000) are- and I will generalise here as there are always exceptions which some smart arse will link to- older, low spec, with fairly big miles.
To get an MX5 with the folding tin top realistically they're a whacking 50% more at 12k, at which point those alternatives get a whole heap better, to the point where I think wtf would I spend 12k on an MX5 for when I could have a pretty decent Z4/ Boxster/ S2000.
Bascially;
- Has anyone got a Roadster Coupe and do you think it's worth the extra? They only cost £1200 more than the normal ones so why they've held out so strongly is a bit of a mystery to me... http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=297...
- Given the early ones are approaching 5 years old, is the roof likely to fail/ can I expect expensive problems?
- And aside from the horrors of an Eos/ Focus/ Astra/ Peugeot which I refuse to believe offer any sort of pleasurable drive, are there any other real alternatives with a folding roof?
Bristol by the way- that's the reason I'd prefer something solid when the car is left on the street, but ideally don't have to take the whole thing off after. Locals have no respect at all (saw a guy putting out his cigarette on a convertible Saab roof just last night....)
Are you comparing like for like MX5s age wise? I'm surprised (and pleased!) if there's that much difference.
I had a Boxster S two cars prior to my RC and could have got another... but I prefer the handling characteristics of the 5 and there were certain shortcomings of the Porsche I found mildly annoying. The only thing the 5 lacks compared to Pork is grunt and a bit of refinement.
I had a Boxster S two cars prior to my RC and could have got another... but I prefer the handling characteristics of the 5 and there were certain shortcomings of the Porsche I found mildly annoying. The only thing the 5 lacks compared to Pork is grunt and a bit of refinement.
hornetrider said:
Are you comparing like for like MX5s age wise? I'm surprised (and pleased!) if there's that much difference.
Yup, 2006 cars. There is one 2007 in the classifieds at £10200 but it's the 1.8, anything on autotrader is 12k+, anything from a stealer is 12 or more. http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/2037777.htmhornetrider said:
I had a Boxster S two cars prior to my RC and could have got another... but I prefer the handling characteristics of the 5 and there were certain shortcomings of the Porsche I found mildly annoying. The only thing the 5 lacks compared to Pork is grunt and a bit of refinement.
And in BS8 a Boxster becomes a bumper car, it's amazing a part of town which considers itself posh is inhabited by so many morons.DS3R said:
Despite the obvious benefits I'm struggling to justify the price of an MX-5 Roadster Coupe-
An early but decent spec mk3 (so say 2006, 2.0, leather, option pack, 20k miles or less) is realistically 8k.
At that price the usual alternatives (Z4/ Boxster/ S2000) are- and I will generalise here as there are always exceptions which some smart arse will link to- older, low spec, with fairly big miles.
To get an MX5 with the folding tin top realistically they're a whacking 50% more at 12k, at which point those alternatives get a whole heap better, to the point where I think wtf would I spend 12k on an MX5 for when I could have a pretty decent Z4/ Boxster/ S2000.
Bascially;
- Has anyone got a Roadster Coupe and do you think it's worth the extra? They only cost £1200 more than the normal ones so why they've held out so strongly is a bit of a mystery to me... http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=297...
- Given the early ones are approaching 5 years old, is the roof likely to fail/ can I expect expensive problems?
- And aside from the horrors of an Eos/ Focus/ Astra/ Peugeot which I refuse to believe offer any sort of pleasurable drive, are there any other real alternatives with a folding roof?
Bristol by the way- that's the reason I'd prefer something solid when the car is left on the street, but ideally don't have to take the whole thing off after. Locals have no respect at all (saw a guy putting out his cigarette on a convertible Saab roof just last night....)
Is age and mileage the main considerations?An early but decent spec mk3 (so say 2006, 2.0, leather, option pack, 20k miles or less) is realistically 8k.
At that price the usual alternatives (Z4/ Boxster/ S2000) are- and I will generalise here as there are always exceptions which some smart arse will link to- older, low spec, with fairly big miles.
To get an MX5 with the folding tin top realistically they're a whacking 50% more at 12k, at which point those alternatives get a whole heap better, to the point where I think wtf would I spend 12k on an MX5 for when I could have a pretty decent Z4/ Boxster/ S2000.
Bascially;
- Has anyone got a Roadster Coupe and do you think it's worth the extra? They only cost £1200 more than the normal ones so why they've held out so strongly is a bit of a mystery to me... http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=297...
- Given the early ones are approaching 5 years old, is the roof likely to fail/ can I expect expensive problems?
- And aside from the horrors of an Eos/ Focus/ Astra/ Peugeot which I refuse to believe offer any sort of pleasurable drive, are there any other real alternatives with a folding roof?
Bristol by the way- that's the reason I'd prefer something solid when the car is left on the street, but ideally don't have to take the whole thing off after. Locals have no respect at all (saw a guy putting out his cigarette on a convertible Saab roof just last night....)
Although to be fair, Z4, Boxster and S2000 are all canvas roofs anyhow, so it would seem they'd never be on the running list no matter the budget.
Only one(s) I can think of would be Daihatsu Copen. Ok it's FWD, but meant to be a fairly good steer too, lightweight and chuckable.
300bhp/ton said:
Is age and mileage the main considerations?
Getting a Mk3 is really (I have a leggy Mk1) and making sure I can sell it on at some point, hence miles/ age are noted. Given the Summer has ended, prices are variable, privateers are getting realistic, garages still want 10k for a boggo 06 1.8. I can see the sense in the hard top version, just can't reconcile the price difference!Good point about the standard roof on the others- if I got something really nice I'd consider renting a garage or OSP, so that's the real trade off- paying 12k for an MX5 with a hard top & I can leave it on the street with slightly more confidence than not, versus paying about the same for what I consider to be "better" cars (awaits massive flaming for that one!) which hold their value better, but to be kept good round here have to be off the road.
300bhp/ton said:
edo said:
The other option of course is to save a fortune (and some weight), and get the soft top Mk3 and a removable hard top....
Or move house, that way they could have what they want and not worry so much?I have nowhere to keep a hard top,
the weight saving is only allegedly 30kg
and moving house is not that easy!
What I really want is an XK8 (something like this - first one I found not a specific http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1832618.htm), but the missus likes the MK5 and she will be the main driver, and I cannot believe an £8k convertible Jag with heavy miles on it will be anything other than bloody expensive!!
ETA- oh, and a garage, obviously, with the extra 4k to cover potential mechanical & electrical trauma.
Edited by DS3R on Thursday 30th September 10:06
DS3R said:
300bhp/ton said:
edo said:
The other option of course is to save a fortune (and some weight), and get the soft top Mk3 and a removable hard top....
Or move house, that way they could have what they want and not worry so much?I have nowhere to keep a hard top,
the weight saving is only allegedly 30kg
and moving house is not that easy!
What I really want is an XK8 (something like this - first one I found not a specific http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1832618.htm), but the missus likes the MK5 and she will be the main driver, and I cannot believe an £8k convertible Jag with heavy miles on it will be anything other than bloody expensive!!
Ok if you insist on using a main dealer then it might. But it's not so complex, most garages should be able to work on them fine and oil is oil, plugs are plugs sort of thing. Make good use of specialists and source used parts from specialist breakers if you need to.
300bhp/ton said:
The Jag will use more fuel for sure. Not sure why it should be more pricey otherwise.
Ok if you insist on using a main dealer then it might. But it's not so complex, most garages should be able to work on them fine and oil is oil, plugs are plugs sort of thing. Make good use of specialists and source used parts from specialist breakers if you need to.
Ok if you insist on using a main dealer then it might. But it's not so complex, most garages should be able to work on them fine and oil is oil, plugs are plugs sort of thing. Make good use of specialists and source used parts from specialist breakers if you need to.
Nothing ever goes wrong with MX5s, they use half the fuel, half the tyres, probably half the insurance, need I go on??
Lord only knows the list of common issues that need attending to on an XK (it is a 40-50k car new after all, with commensurate running costs).
hornetrider said:
300bhp/ton said:
The Jag will use more fuel for sure. Not sure why it should be more pricey otherwise.
Ok if you insist on using a main dealer then it might. But it's not so complex, most garages should be able to work on them fine and oil is oil, plugs are plugs sort of thing. Make good use of specialists and source used parts from specialist breakers if you need to.
Ok if you insist on using a main dealer then it might. But it's not so complex, most garages should be able to work on them fine and oil is oil, plugs are plugs sort of thing. Make good use of specialists and source used parts from specialist breakers if you need to.
Nothing ever goes wrong with MX5s
hornetrider said:
they use half the fuel
Do they? I suspect an XK8 would be an 18-22mpg type of car (maybe more on a run), Parkers has the 2.0 MX-5 listed at 36mpg. So I suspect in real world driving less than half the fuel difference.Not too mention annual mileage plays a huge part on such costs. If the OP only does 8000 miles a year and lets assume a 36mpg average for the Mazda and 24mpg average for the XK8
That means the Jag would cost £586 more a year in fuel. Or £49/month more.
EDIT: This site http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-drivi... claims 24mpg for an XK8 convertible on a combined cycle.
hornetrider said:
half the tyres
Does the MX-5 only have 2 wheels?Not too mention, how often do you actually replace tyres??? I suspect it certainly isn't half the cost. Every couple of years I'd expect, maybe not even that depending on mileage covered. So it might cost you £200 more in total every 24 months. Wow huge costs...
hornetrider said:
probably half the insurance
Unlikely, but would depend on who and who with. But again, it's hardly likely to be a huge amount on an annual basis for most people.hornetrider said:
need I go on??
Only if you have something truly worth mentioning..... 
hornetrider said:
Lord only knows the list of common issues that need attending to on an XK (it is a 40-50k car new after all, with commensurate running costs).
Yes it was a £50k car when new and if you want every thing to be perfect on it, then yes it'll likely cost to pamper it.But at the end of the day, there are lots and lots and lots of similar cars for similar or less money used every day by 1000's of people in the UK. If they were half as bad as you claim they'd all have been set on fire and claimed against the insurance or something equally daft.
The engines are proven in these (slight issue with timing chain) but generally well proven, as are the gearboxes (ZF I think). These same engines/gearboxes are used in XJ's, S-Types, Lincolns, Ford's and Land Rovers.
The rest of the car is more plush than overly sophisticated. No turbo's, no eDiffs, no AWD, not anti yaw control. It has some electrics inside like seats, mirrors and doors. But this isn't anything all that radical or different to most cars.
I'm not trying to be blind to it, but there's a huge difference in being a money pit and only costing a bit more to run a 4.0 litre V8 GT when compared to a 2.0 litre sports car.
Or to put it on the flip side - what exactly do you think would make it a money pit and hugely more costly to run?? Fuel is really only the main difference.
With a bottom of the market XK8 you are wasting money to service it at a main dealer and as most services are only an oil and filter change, get a local garage to do it for £40-100.
300bhp/ton said:
hornetrider said:
they use half the fuel
Do they? I suspect an XK8 would be an 18-22mpg type of car (maybe more on a run), Parkers has the 2.0 MX-5 listed at 36mpg. So I suspect in real world driving less than half the fuel difference.300bhp/ton said:
hornetrider said:
half the tyres
Does the MX-5 only have 2 wheels?Not too mention, how often do you actually replace tyres??? I suspect it certainly isn't half the cost. Every couple of years I'd expect, maybe not even that depending on mileage covered. So it might cost you £200 more in total every 24 months. Wow huge costs...
300bhp/ton said:
hornetrider said:
probably half the insurance
Unlikely, but would depend on who and who with. But again, it's hardly likely to be a huge amount on an annual basis for most people.300bhp/ton said:
hornetrider said:
Lord only knows the list of common issues that need attending to on an XK (it is a 40-50k car new after all, with commensurate running costs).
Yes it was a £50k car when new and if you want every thing to be perfect on it, then yes it'll likely cost to pamper it.Please, please do not even try to say that the running costs for an MX5 are similar to those of an XK8. Sometimes you post interesting stuff, and sometimes you post drivel. Care to guess which pidgeon hole I'm putting this lot in?
hornetrider said:
300bhp said:
Complete and utter drivel
I don't even know where to start. The implied facepalm above is about right though!I asked some sensible questions, added some numbers and detail and you've....... not actually come up with anything.
And this isn't about arguing. But clarifying what's been said.
So exactly how do you justify that the Jag would cost vastly more?? - some numbers please.
I'm not denying that it wouldn't cost more, but I don't agree that it would be a money pit or that it would even cost huge amounts more so long as buy with common sense and have realistic expectations.
300bhp/ton said:
hornetrider said:
300bhp said:
Complete and utter drivel
I don't even know where to start. The implied facepalm above is about right though!I asked some sensible questions, added some numbers and detail and you've....... not actually come up with anything.
And this isn't about arguing. But clarifying what's been said.
So exactly how do you justify that the Jag would cost vastly more?? - some numbers please.
I'm not denying that it wouldn't cost more, but I don't agree that it would be a money pit or that it would even cost huge amounts more so long as buy with common sense and have realistic expectations.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff