Modified Mazdaspeed 2006 MX-5

The '06 will weigh 2470 lbs, per the numbers above. That's less than 2500 and still closer to 2000 lbs.

-John

Definitely not in looks, but that is all opinion. Reliability? We'll see in 2020. One thing that the miata used to offer was a go-kart like ride that was unavailable in any other mass-produced street vehicle. Adding 400 to 500 pounds greatly takes away from this, imo, no matter how much more power you add. Every additional pound is one step further away from the unique car that it was and one step closer to what is now common in the roadster market, again, imo.

Pat

Well, we are getting close on numbers here. I saw an article that said it was something just over 2600 pounds, which is easy to believe since my former '96M supposedly weighed 2450 pounds and this is a larger car. I'm not sure that we'll know the actual weight until someone buys one and puts it on a scale. Mazda's claim of 155 hp on their 140 hp miata engine has me skeptical of their numbers.

In any case, since introducing the car, the miata has added the weight of an extremely large passenger. My point, if I had one, is that I think that the car gets less fun to drive and more like other cars as it gets heavier. I loved my '96M edition, but it was not as fun for me to drive as a less powerful 1990 or 1991 model. Driving my current 1991 model that has far more power and considerably less weight than a Mazdaspeed is even more fun.

Pat

I just don't believe too much can be concluded from a magazine article when it leads to hair-splitting.

Driving the car is the proof, isn't it?

The more I've looked, the more I believe - new model bugs notwithstanding, this will be the most refined MX-5 ever. If the designers haven't lost their minds (which happens - remember how Ford took the pony car concept and turned it into the 1977 T-Bird?) the 2006 MX-5 will be the best ever.

Cheers, Dana

I think that the two of us have far different priorities for the MX-5, and that best is a highly subjective term, especially with cars.

As far as the Mustang, I never did have any interest in those things. By the time I could drive (1985, iirc) I could understand the personal benefits of lighter weight, more reliable Japanese cars like the early Datsun Z versus the heavy and unreliable American trash like the Mustang and Camaro that were being produced at that time.

Imo, the miata is simply going the way of the Z car, getting heavier and more boring with each model. I don't see that as a refinement any more now than it was back in the late 70's and early 80's when they ruined the Datsun Z.

Pat

I replaced my 1968 Mustang with a 1971 240Z, so I might have a little more direct experience in this area than you, Pat. Both were great cars; different strengths and weaknesses, sure, but each a treasure in its own right. The Mustang weighed 2800 lb., the 240Z weighed 2400 lb.--not a huge spread, considering the Ford's back seat.

The Z was quicker-handling to be sure, but also quirky--you don't ever, EVER lift throttle in a corner in a Z unless you enjoy snap spins. The Mustang was a very successful autocross car, a pursuit at which the Z was worthless. The Mustang's weak point was its drum brakes.

Both cars had industrial-strength BabeMagnets. I carried a blanket in the Mustang's trunk to spread out on the hood. 'Nuff said.

I sold each of them at 80k miles. Both were starting to use oil. The Mustang had been through a clutch and two sets of spider gears (the engine was not stock). The Z ate rear-axle U-joints like candy, and rusted out twice. I'd rate reliability and build quality as a tossup.

I for one won't complain that we actually have a roadster market! And with the GM twins coming out soon there are more choices than ever.

Or the Mustang II which was bacically a rebodied Pinto... Woo hoo!

I'm not talking about my priorities, or yours. I'm talking about the priorities of the MX-5 design team; if they haven't lost their minds, they're doing their best to deliver the concept as their market evolves.

In other words, the weight of the car has changed slightly in the current model, about 1%, which I'm certain you'd only notice on paper. The peak engine power has been increased about 20%, though we haven't seen a torque curve yet (at least I haven't) so we don't know how the increase has changed the delivery of power. The chassis is claimed to be substantially stiffer.

20% more power, stiffer chassis, and a negligible (1%) increase in weight. On paper, this sounds like the designers have done a remarkable job. [...]

The Z-car designers did lose their minds for a while, in the early 1980s. They came back to their senses; if you took the current 350Z back in time, and placed it on the lot next to a 240Z, no one would remember the 240Z today.

Dana

I won't argue about the points on the Mustang since I never owned one, only saw some of the problems that others had. The 1968 Mustang was made a year before I was born (back when they at least looked good), and all of the pre-1970 ones that I saw were junk unless they were really expensive due to a total restoration (the 1968 was 14 years old before I could legally drive). The Z Cars that I had were both easily affordable

280Z's, both with modifications and their heavy bumpers removed. The 280Z was heavier and with more "refinements" than the 240Z, and also not as fun to drive. The 280ZX got even worse, and then they completely killed it with the piggish 1984 300ZX until they decided to turn it into a completely different, far more expensive and truly fast car in 1990 or 1991 with the twin turbo. I simply see the same trend with the MX-5.

I had better luck with my two Z cars, they were both already quite old when I got them and I put about 120K hard miles on the two cars total, taking both well past 150K miles and they were still going when I sold them. Rust was a problem, as was some oil burning on the first one, but I only replaced one rear axle U-Joint during those 8+ years. There were some other problems, the cars were far from perfect, but I was stranded only once that I can remember due to a bad fuel pump. I have a feeling that I would not have gotten that kind of reliability (or luck?) out of a 10 to 20 year old Mustang with over 100K miles, but I may be wrong. This feeling is caused by my experience with other Fords that I have owned, which have both been far less reliable vehicles than the Japanese cars that I have owned. I think that Ford must have made the Mustang better in 1968, but by 1985, the new ones that I saw on the road were completely uninteresting crap, but then, so was every other American car that I can think of that was made in 1985.

Pat

It didn't take until the early 80's, the Z car was ruined by 1979 with the introduction of the 280ZX.

if you took the current 350Z back in time,

You could say the same thing about the Corvette, the Porsche 911, or just about any other high-performance car, at least as far as performance. Looks are another thing since that is opinion. I think that the 240Z looks beter than the 350Z, but that is just my viewpoint.

Pat

No argument there.

pws wrote in news:2lb7e.20366$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.texas.rr.com:

In the looks category the current Vette definately surpasses its predecessors at least as far back as the Stingrays if not further. The

911 otoh, has been "smoothed" too much. I loved the 911 w/ the headlights that sat well above the level of the hood and the whale-fin wings.. think they lasted till somewhere in the early 90s.

-Scott

That's very interesting you'd say that. As of about 10 years ago, mildly warmed over 240/260/280Z's were dominant autocross cars in their class.

I owned a '76 280Z and also a '72 240Z. My NB feels very much like my '72 did. It feels like it's about the same weight, same power approx, just in all, a miata to me feels like a Z car for today.

IMHO my 240Z was one great-handling car... and it was mostly stock (sway bars, tires & wheels). It was definitely among the most fun cars I have ever owned. I drove it to about 250K miles before rusted floor pans, some major brake hydraulics problem and the need for a reliable family car forced me to trade it for a station wagon.

I agree that the 240Z's handled well, as did the 280Z once those gigantic bumpers were removed. This 240Z in the link below isn't exactly stock, but neither is the Flying Miata Track Dog, which finished 3rd behind the 30-something year old 240Z.

Pat

Is this going to become the next "Thread That Will Not Die"? It's sure beginning to look like it!

I think your fears about the MX-5/Miata are unfounded for numerous reasons.

1. The Z series had to adapt to changing emissions and safety laws in the70s.
2. They were competing against Mustangs and Camaros -- hence that stupid 2+2 body and mushy ride.
3. The Miata gained just 250 lbs from 1993 through 2006.
4. The car market is fractured into little tiny niches today, with Miatas selling 10,000 copies to people who want a light roadster.
5. Most changes for '06 are for performance. It has a stiffer chassis, wheels pushed to the corners, more powerful engine, etc. They added roll bars and side airbags but it still has a manual top. If they made a 4 passenger Miata then you would have room to complain!

If anything the minimal changes show they stuck to their vision remarkably well. The roadster market is now packed with competitors so how exactly could they change it without losing current buyers? It can't get bigger or more expensive without losing its distinctiveness and becoming just another S2000, Boxster, Z4, etc.

-John

[What a thought exercise...contemplate a 4 passenger Miata...!]

Most cogent: somewhere around 1973, Datsun as a company lost its zoom-zoom. They no longer got it.

Mazda's zoom-zoom is still increasing.