advertisement


Any love for MX5’s?

To answer the title: simply put, no not really. I'm not a convertable fan. Plus I've never been a fan of the looks, at least not for the first three generations. The fourth gen folding hard top looks decent though, but as per all folding hard tops they compromise the boot space too much for me.
 
gez said:
To answer the title: simply put, no not really. I'm not a convertable fan. Plus I've never been a fan of the looks, at least not for the first three generations. The fourth gen folding hard top looks decent though, but as per all folding hard tops they compromise the boot space too much for me.
Click to expand...
Strangely enough, for the current generation, there is no change in boot space for the convertible or the retractable hard top. The folding mechanism is quite ingenious and in reality it is just storing the 'targa' top in the space where the soft top goes. That said the boot is still tiny!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gez
Martyn Miles said:
I appreciate the MX5 is a popular car, but I never could get on with its shape.
The MG-F looked so my nicer to my eyes.
Click to expand...

and in that time we bought an MGF and then a TF, both were fun and good tourers. Much preferred thr interiors to the MX5 of the time. Then moved to an S2000.
 
Both models I feel look far better lowered an inch or two, the wheel to wheel arch gap is far too large stock. Pretty easy to change out the OEM springs to slightly stiffer and shorter ones.
 
MartinC said:
wheel arch gap is far too large stock
Click to expand...
No it's not, it's exactly the size the suspension engineers and designers intended it to be, given the performance envelope and use case that the car was designed for. You may feel in your opinion that it's aesthetically too large, but that doesn't mean it is. If Mazda wanted to position the car more towards the handling / track use end of the spectrum they would have used a lower suspension as stock and the gap would have been smaller, but that wasn't what they intended the car to be.

NB: it has nothing to do with cost either, a lower suspension is no more expensive to the car manufacturer than a taller one.
 
gez said:
No it's not, it's exactly the size the suspension engineers and designers intended it to be, given the performance envelope and use case that the car was designed for. You may feel in your opinion that it's aesthetically too large, but that doesn't mean it is. If Mazda wanted to position the car more towards the handling / track use end of the spectrum they would have used a lower suspension as stock and the gap would have been smaller, but that wasn't what they intended the car to be.

NB: it has nothing to do with cost either, a lower suspension is no more expensive to the car manufacturer than a taller one.
Click to expand...
The gap is just another variable in the suspension set up AIUI

Wrt to the 'dead-cat-space' above the wheel (as it is known to some) - I was led to believe the factory setting is invariably a compromise between the advantages of a lower CoG versus the reduced ground clearance / likelihood of customer complaints or warranty claims from litigious customers who may damage their car going over speed-bumps and the like. There's no fixed right or wrong value for it surely - no ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gez
MartinC said:
Strangely enough, for the current generation, there is no change in boot space for the convertible or the retractable hard top. The folding mechanism is quite ingenious and in reality it is just storing the 'targa' top in the space where the soft top goes. That said the boot is still tiny!
Click to expand...
The NC was the same, neither designs impede on boot space unlike other marques. The ND boot is hardly massive but it is deeper than some of the other MX5’s so is actually surprisingly practical.

I definitely prefer the looks of the ND soft top over the targa style RF.

Still loving my new car and so far have returned a pretty easy 50mpg. Part of that is down to a 108 mile return commute mostly on motorways. It’s one of the select few cars that has real composure on lumpy country roads, the Elise’s were always superb in that respect.

Oh, Carplay fitted today by the dealer. It’s not perfect as the screen is fairly low rent but when you’re used to it, you miss it!
 
gez said:
No it's not, it's exactly the size the suspension engineers and designers intended it to be, given the performance envelope and use case that the car was designed for. You may feel in your opinion that it's aesthetically too large, but that doesn't mean it is. If Mazda wanted to position the car more towards the handling / track use end of the spectrum they would have used a lower suspension as stock and the gap would have been smaller, but that wasn't what they intended the car to be.

NB: it has nothing to do with cost either, a lower suspension is no more expensive to the car manufacturer than a taller one.
Click to expand...
Well, each to their own. Visually to my eyes the stock height looks more suited to a SUV.

Lowered:

OlcdjoTh.jpg



Stock:

-1x-1.jpg
 
You can have a lowered car because you think it looks prettier, but on UK roads they're a right old pain in the bum.
 
Suffolk Tony said:
You can have a lowered car because you think it looks prettier, but on UK roads they're a right old pain in the bum.
Click to expand...
Lowered and with 40 profile tyres, or lower… the car forums have regular threads about increasing tyre profile to make driving bearable. Yep, people are happy to buy a set of smaller diameter wheels and slightly more sensible tyres, and turn their noses up at the last grain of handling/roadholding.
 
Tony Lockhart said:
Lowered and with 40 profile tyres, or lower… the car forums have regular threads about increasing tyre profile to make driving bearable. Yep, people are happy to buy a set of smaller diameter wheels and slightly more sensible tyres, and turn their noses up at the last grain of handling/roadholding.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the ultra low profile tyres give less good handling. It was well explored in the Caterham 7 fraternity with the consensus being that anything below 60 profile on that car was nt worth fitting. I find the 19" 4 0 profile on my current car give a lousy ride. They are heavy, too, because less tyre means more wheel and aluminium is denser than air.
 
stevec67 said:
Sometimes the ultra low profile tyres give less good handling. It was well explored in the Caterham 7 fraternity with the consensus being that anything below 60 profile on that car was nt worth fitting. I find the 19" 4 0 profile on my current car give a lousy ride. They are heavy, too, because less tyre means more wheel and aluminium is denser than air.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Well, there have been books written about car handling, I have tried to read a couple (it soon becomes very tedious and rather boring). What soon becomes obvious is that it's vey complicated and doesn't include any fast rules. Like lowering the suspension -> automatically better handling.
I have settled into one simple rule, though: If you want a good handling car, buy one that already has it. MX5 is one.
There is every possibility to screw things up, though:

iu


Horrible as the thought is, the car is road legal in Sweden!!!!
 
RJohan said:
Absolutely. Well, there have been books written about car handling, I have tried to read a couple (it soon becomes very tedious and rather boring). What soon becomes obvious is that it's vey complicated and doesn't include any fast rules. Like lowering the suspension -> automatically better handling.
I have settled into one simple rule, though: If you want a good handling car, buy one that already has it. MX5 is one.
There is every possibility to screw things up, though:

iu


Horrible as the thought is, the car is road legal in Sweden!!!!
Click to expand...
Airbag suspension?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top