No turbos #1
Printable View
No turbos #1
OK. I'll say it. Gawd it's ugly.
I think that the front is the least successful bit and that these renders don't do the car's justice, but if you look at pic 2 you can see that the proportions are just right.
Long bonnet, cabin pushed backwards, short deck.
Classic sportscar.
The proportions don't matter if the details aren't right, and vice versa.
The Miata has never been a looker, and here is another variant I won't be seen driving.
I kind of have to agree, it's not really the prettiest car.
It's not the best looking car ever but neither is it terrible.
And anyway, all that matters is the way it drives.
I could make a crude joke.
Please do.
First glance I'd think its a Honda S2000 every time I'd see one
Actually I got one better, it's a CR-Z, S2000, Jag F-Type frankenmonster
[quote=Cobrafan427;1008458]First glance I'd think its a Honda S2000 every time I'd see one[/quote]
Oh man, that's cruel, I'd love to see a new S2000- sadly, I don't think we'll see a new one without batteries, a hybrid system and 4WD.
I don't see the resemblance, but I do laud Mazda for going simple. Honda/Acura is so lost at doing what they used to do well I'm at a loss for words.
MX-5 platform would probably be a good one for an electric motor in the back and a little rotary range extender motor in the front. If they did it right it would be a nice little halo/demo for the tech.
[quote=Ferrer;1008451]Please do.[/quote]
Nyehhhh...
Since we've established UCP is a safe place (in truth, I rarely see such civilized debate on a car forum, let alone the internet) I want to admit I'm not keen on dedicated roadsters. A coupe with a convertible variant? Solid. A dedicated roadster? Bleh. The removable roof on the Vette, and CGT/918 have always irked me for this reason.
Am I a bad person?
[quote=Kitdy;1008464]Nyehhhh...
Since we've established UCP is a safe place (in truth, I rarely see such civilized debate on a car forum, let alone the internet) I want to admit I'm not keen on dedicated roadsters. A coupe with a convertible variant? Solid. A dedicated roadster? Bleh. The removable roof on the Vette, and CGT/918 have always irked me for this reason.
Am I a bad person?[/quote]
No, I don't like convertibles either. When the S2000 went away, I was hoping that they'd come out with a coupe version, kind of like the Z4 coupe.
I'm surprised, our taste in cars are quite similar.
[quote=Kitdy;1008464]Nyehhhh...
Since we've established UCP is a safe place (in truth, I rarely see such civilized debate on a car forum, let alone the internet) I want to admit I'm not keen on dedicated roadsters. A coupe with a convertible variant? Solid. A dedicated roadster? Bleh. The removable roof on the Vette, and CGT/918 have always irked me for this reason.
Am I a bad person?[/quote]
This could be a climate thing. :)
[quote=NSXType-R;1008469]No, I don't like convertibles either. When the S2000 went away, I was hoping that they'd come out with a coupe version, kind of like the Z4 coupe.
[/quote]
I absolutely love the hardtop conversions that people bolt on to their S2Ks. How could you not like something like this?
I took this picture at a tuner show (went with my brother, he's got a Sentra Spec-V with some mods on it) Not sure anyone on here is into the tuner stuff but if anyone wants I can post some other pics in another thread
[quote=Cobrafan427;1008478]I absolutely love the hardtop conversions that people bolt on to their S2Ks. How could you not like something like this?
I took this picture at a tuner show (went with my brother, he's got a Sentra Spec-V with some mods on it) Not sure anyone on here is into the tuner stuff but if anyone wants I can post some other pics in another thread[/quote]
I didn't say I don't like the S2000 or the hard tops, I just wanted a true coupe version come from Honda. It seems like a good way to drum up extra sales, the S800 also came in coupe and convertible form.
Way OT rant: As we have discussed many times, Honda has lost the plot. They are not the beautifully simple company that embraced racing and enthusiasts under Sochiro's vision (they sold craptons of cars like this too); they are just ambling around, resting on their laurels as Toyota. Toyota's saving grace is hybrid technology, if that is your thing. The Autoblog podcast is further biasing me against hybrids; full EV, or gasoline/diesel. No heavy half measures. I still commend a pantheon of technologies to embraced to see what is the most efficient way forward.
The Miata/MX-5 remains true to Mazda, and true to what it is. It'll probably be a peach to drive. My friend just bought a 3, my brother and his friend have 3s too, and I drive my family's one. Mazda is the isht. I'm all up in that Kool-Aid.
[quote=Kitdy;1008480]Way OT rant: As we have discussed many times, Honda has lost the plot. They are not the beautifully simple company that embraced racing and enthusiasts under Sochiro's vision (they sold craptons of cars like this too); they are just ambling around, resting on their laurels as Toyota. Toyota's saving grace is hybrid technology, if that is your thing. The Autoblog podcast is further biasing me against hybrids; full EV, or gasoline/diesel. No heavy half measures. I still commend a pantheon of technologies to embraced to see what is the most efficient way forward.
The Miata/MX-5 remains true to Mazda, and true to what it is. It'll probably be a peach to drive. My friend just bought a 3, my brother and his friend have 3s too, and I drive my family's one. Mazda is the isht. I'm all up in that Kool-Aid.[/quote]
I've been rather disappointed in Honda/Acura's lineup. The NSX may as well be vaporware, no one remembers a car unveiled 3 years ago.
But then again, this is not the thread to discuss it in...
Reduced the weight.
Quickened up the steering.
Shortened the body, slightly increased the wheelbase.
All the things you do to make a fast sportscar :)
On the looks the side I have come to like the more for looking at a comparisons someone suggested with recent alfa prototypes. The rear and tail is fantastic. nose is one of those which is acceptable given it has to carry signature Mazda look :)
But it's a winner because it's lighter, faster, nimbler .... on paper.
Have already told them I want one for tests :)
Needs a rotary though...
[quote=Matra et Alpine;1008511]
But it's a winner because it's lighter, faster, nimbler .... on paper.
Have already told them I want one for tests :)[/quote]
Think it'll be quicker than your RX-8?
yep, the 8 weighs 1500K with me and race fuel in it :(
The Hamster Racing Mk 2 MX5 is 1100kg in same trim.
For hills and sprints that hurts. Long track/circuit got em beat all the way, but in our short tight stuff the 8 is just too big, too long wheelbase, too heavy.
BUT its loads of fun and handles a wee bit better.
[quote=Kitdy;1008464]Nyehhhh...
Since we've established UCP is a safe place (in truth, I rarely see such civilized debate on a car forum, let alone the internet) I want to admit I'm not keen on dedicated roadsters. A coupe with a convertible variant? Solid. A dedicated roadster? Bleh. The removable roof on the Vette, and CGT/918 have always irked me for this reason.
Am I a bad person?[/quote]
Yes, and so am I. But that's besides the point.
I actually prefer a clean sheet roadster to one that is converted from (or shares underpinnings with) a hardtop. Targas and detachable roof panels are the stupidest idea ever in my opinion, you get the worse of both world with none of the advantages. In fact I even think that sunroofs aren't a very good idea. If you want to enjoy the wind in your hair (and the flies, and get third degree sunburns and the interior covered in dust and shit in no time at all) just buy a proper convertible.
I think that currently, given the choice I'd lean towards a hardtop car rather than an open top motor. Don't get me wrong, I like roadsters and I enjoyed my MX-5; the best thing about them is that they amplify the driving experience and you can have fun even from relatively low speeds.
One thing I have learnt the hard way though, is that I'm unlikely to ever run again a soft top as a first car. You can do it (especially one as "logic" as folding metal roof base MX-5) but it's just that you do not want to; the downsides are far greater than the upsides and unless you have tones of spare time and no friends at all you (I?) rarely go for dedicated drives on the countryside. Most of the time you are either in a traffic jam, on a boring ring road or monotone motorway where you are just better off in a closed car.
Of course, if you are a proper petrolhead like me, this all goes out the window the day you have cash in the kitty and you go past a Mazda dealer with the new MX-5 exposed. But for now, the above is where my opinion stands.
As for hybrids I think they could work if they were mated to diesel engines; unfortunately the diesel-hybrid efforts done so far have been... abysmal at best.
I think it looks great and even better than the older models *flame suit on*
Mazda MX-5 (NP) #2
2.0 SkyActiv in the US, 1.5 everywhere else. For some reason.
Shouldn't that read US to get the 2 litre, everybody else both engines?
Communists. As long as their is the choice between the two it doesn't matter. I am kinda more interested in more flavours, not that the Miata/MX-5 needs them. A coupe, and turbo Mazdaspeed version would be neat.
I wonder if Canada will get the 1.5 option. We can sometimes be glossed over in the press, and even though Autoblog.ca exists, I read the .com, traitorously.
TTAC isn't that bad re: Canada. The new EIC is a Canadian who I happened to meet at a party at one of my closest friend's houses a few years ago. Woot?
[quote=Ferrer;1008918]Shouldn't that read US to get the 2 litre, everybody else both engines?[/quote]
The quote I saw didn't suggest any options. It would be good to have the choice though.
[quote=Ferrer;1008918]Shouldn't that read US to get the 2 litre, everybody else both engines?[/quote]
Maybe after a few years.
But a 1.5 with 120 bhp wouldn't be a bad thing in a car weighing less than 1000 kilos. It's a roadster, it's about handling not raw power.:D
Evo guy at the motor show reckons it's a choice situation, so that's pretty choice.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21PfTkqbNE"]Mazda MX-5 at Paris 2014 | evo MOTOR SHOW - YouTube[/ame]
[quote=Duell;1008928]Maybe after a few years.
But a 1.5 with 120 bhp wouldn't be a bad thing in a car weighing less than 1000 kilos. It's a roadster, it's about handling not raw power.:D[/quote]
Well, you are speaking to a chap who bought a 120-odd bhp rear wheel drive roadster instead of 150-plus bhp hot hatch just because of that.
Nevertheless, choice is good.
And power is good too.
Mazda UK has apparently confirmed they are getting both the 2 litre and the 1.5. I guess it'll be the same all over Europe.
First reviews are in. This one is from CAR.
[url="http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/Mazda-MX-5-15-2015-review/"]Mazda MX-5 1.5 (2015) review | Road Testing Reviews | Car Magazine Online
[/url]
It has a 1.5 litre 130bhp engine, weights a ton, has a limited slip diff and drives superbly.
Now I want one.
Oh, by the way, there will also be a 155bhp 2 litre eventually.
Oh and also, they actually are testing them around here because I saw a white one driving one last week.
I dig them.
[url="http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/mazda-mx-5-roadster-review-first-drive-2015-01-30"]First drive: 2015 Mazda MX-5 - BBC Top Gear[/url]
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=780h_oLMdLk"]2015 Mazda MX-5 driven - first verdict - YouTube[/ame]
That was exactly the one I saw, rocking about the Catalan hills.
It is like 1960s all over again #2
Small N/A engine, RWD, cheap and FUN #3
In numbers, that equals to 1,5 litre with 96 kW and €22.990,- #4