2006 Miata

Since the American population is getting older, the average height will shrink. (Mine did!)

Interesting that you have an S2000 too. How far apart are it and the Miata in terms of performance?

No??! You surprise me. :)

Actually, if I would have had a choice, I would not have bought 90% of the fancy stuff. The way Mazda has set it up, if you need AC and cruise control, and seats suitable for extended driving, GT here you come. Even if you drop all of them and buy base, you still get lots of junk.

Leon

I test drove an S2000 before driving the MX-5. Very impressive car. Very sweet shifter (better than the MX-5; best I've ever experienced), high revving engine (8,000 RPM!), and, for me, fairly comfortable. Very plain, though leather, interior with digital dash (I like analog better). Stiffer suspension than the MX-5 but handles better and is about 1.5 seconds faster from 0-60. My wife hated it because she thought it was too masculine and didn't suit her at all. I loved it. It also cost $6,000 more than my MX-5 and got about 5 mpg less. But, I think, it is a great sports car, but more uncompromising than the MX-5. More of a track star, less of a street car.

I have heard the the S2000 has a very nice shifter. It actually redlines at 9,000 rpm, my miata will do 8,000. (the rpm can be set anywhere from as low as you want all the way up to

20,000 rpm with the Tec-3 computer, but 20,000 rpm may be a bit high)

I like how the S2000 looks, my only complaint is the high horsepower versus the low torque, but you aren't going to squeeze much low-end torque out of a 4 cylinder without forced induction.

I'll take a turbo miata over one any day. I don't have to redline the thing to make it go fast because it has a lot of low-end torque, but if I do open it up, it will easily eat a stock S2000 for breakfast and ask for more. :-)

Pat

Had an S2000 (past tense). Sold it, sold my '01 Miata LS, and totalled my bike (that wasn't planned though) to buy the '06 MX-5 and '03 Corvette.

In terms of straight line performance, off the line they're about the same. Hit

6000 RPM in the S2000 and it feels like a turbo kicked in all the way to the 9000 rpm redline.

S2000 redlines at 9,000 rpm up to '03. In '04 they went to the 2.2l and lowered the redline to 8,000.

You're getting extra low-end torque by means of a turbo? Patent that sucker!

-- Larry

Dyno charts:

Look at both sets -- it looks like the low-end torque boost is coming from the addition of the ECU and other add-ons, not the turbo, which shouldn't be doing anything at low revs.

I guess you could set an ECU up to control a turbo as well, and have it spooled up at low engine rpms, but then you'd run very inefficiently, and might as well have a supercharger.

-- Larry

What's your point? To run more than 5 or 6 psi means installing an aftermarket ECU of some sort, so it's hardly a separate issue. The FM turbos spool up pretty much as fast as you can put your foot down--there's essesntially no turbo lag. This is not some riceboy backyard DIY project; it's a well-developed kit, with excellent drivability. The dyno plots show an increase from 35 to 50 lb-ft at 2000 rpm, which is not a trivial improvement.

That would be my choice anyway. Check out the sick torque curve on the Uber 3.

I'd just go to the nearest dealer and tell him what I want. They can order anything.

Crank windows are a pain because they require awkward leans to operate. Window wings are something I associate with GM pickups from the early '80s, and I think fun cars are even more fun with music. YMMV.

Slight correction: you still get lots of things, almost all of which are standard on other cars, too. I mean, how many cars are even available without power windows, locks, mirrors, etc. these days?

The base models just don't sell, and I, for one, am perfectly content with that. All of my other vehicles have lots of options and I'm not one of those guys that associates "fun sports car" with "uncomfortable".

I don't recall ever wishing I had power windows in my '96 (bought new).

The great thing about window wings (vent windows) was if you smoked. You could hold that cigarette near the open vent window and nearly all the smoke would vent out. You could also flick the ash anywhere near the window and it would get sucked out.

I went to the dealer I bought the 2002 from...they said it would take six months and even then it might not be the one without air...so much for that...

I had a couple 323's without air and no radio.....yes my YMMV does indeed. I think my window wing association dates back to the 50s &

60s.

I do smoke and wings would be nice for that reason. Also without A/C it was nice to direct the air flow.

Me too. On that we agree. I've owned one turbo, and would never even think of owning another, especially if I thought I might take that vehicle to the track or an autocross venue.

-- Larry

I can't patent it, it is not my design. If you think that my car does not have more low-end torque now than it did stock, you are welcome to take it for a drive and be proven wrong.

I'll bet $5000.00 against your $50.00 that the low-end torque has increased by a considerable margin. We can even take it to a dyno if you want, but then I will want $500.00 of your money. :-)

Pat

Ahhh, I did not know that. Did the hp or torque numbers change?

Pat