2006 Miata

My point is not that your mods have not increased low-end torque; it is that any increase in low-end torque is not from the turbocharger, since a turbocharger, by definition, does not add any boost at low rpms.

-- Larry

I suggest you quit smoking. I did, on May 22, 1992 after smoking 2-3 packs a day for 28 years.

Thank-you for the suggestion. Good for you on quitting. I'm down to

1-2 packs a day from 2+ packs for the last 40 years. As the hardtop changed with the 06 I have been thinking if I quit smoking I could pay for one just from one years savings. Two years worth of quitting would also get me MS shocks and springs and hopefully cover the labor to have them installed too.

I ordered mine in December. It was build in Japan to order, not taken from stock. The entire thing took 3 months. The statement "it might not be one without air" is ludicrous if you order it. They wanted to sell you a more expensive edition from existing stock and were lying for it.

Leon

Not necessarily. Many turbocharger'd cars show torque peak at suprrisingly low rpm. See, for example, the Volvo S40 T5 with peak torque at as low as 1500 rpm.

One can size a smaller TC that provides boost at lower flows (rpm). Likely will require more wastegating at higher rpm? Or dual/sequential turbos to cover a broader range. Or variable nozzle turbos and/or variable-vane inlets. All can address getting more boost at lower rpm. Also used to reduce lag (a separate, though related issue).

Use the patch to break the nicotine habit, stay away from bars, and find something to substitute for the endorphin rush, exercise perhaps. I quit because a) my kids worried about my health, b) I was reduced to smoking in the garage or the front porch, and c ) because my employer build a new non-smoking building. I suppose concern for my own health is d).

Good luck.

Can you tell me by whose definition? MacInnes shows boost over the entire rpm range and says that when a supercharger is properly matched in housing size, it will produce boost and an increase in hp over the entire rpm range.

Heywood gives some examples of boost schedules for waste-gate controlled turbochargers and notes that their boost is negligible at 1000 rpm, but 1000 rpm is not an operating rpm. He notes that *full* boost is achieved at about 2000 rpm. I would call 2000 rpm a low rpm, wouldn't you?

So, what do you use as reference? Leon

I defintely would call it a low rpm, and the boost gauge is moving by

2,000 rpm. It is either providing boost at a low rpm or I have a faulty boost gauge. There is a wastegate, this was a very professionally done system that had Corky Bell working on it. I guess there is some turbo lag, but it is minimal at best.

Thanks for the latest facts, Leon & Dave.

Pat

Sure, but I'm probably one of the first generation of car buyers that just kind of expects to find things like power windows in any car I buy. I don't think my generation smokes much, either.

As Leon says, something's wrong here--if you truly order a car, there should be no concern as to whether the car will come with the options you requested.

I was born in the '70s. I've never owned a car with window wings. To be more specific, when I see them, I think of my grandfather's brown 1976 Chevy pickup.

That's lame. If you don't like breathing smoke put out the cigarette.

And people on bicycles, motorcycles and in convertibles hate people who do that. Don't get me started on people who just toss their butts out the window.

It's like Leon says....they want to sell the existing stock...I'm sure if an order was placed it would come as ordered...but when you are told six months and maybe even then it won't be the one...well if you are like me you walk and buy somewhere else.

When I think of A/C I think of the tube that hung outside one of the door windows and was filled with ice...My parents never owned one and I never did either...maybe (besides my sinus problems) it's why I don't want air today in a car if I have the choice.

You've got sinus problems and no A/C? I can't believe how much better my nose feels in my home and car with the A/C on versus Mother Nature; I'd be miserable without it...and yes, I've tried.

That's actually the interesting thing--I'm probably one of the few Miata owners that bought the car for its handling and road manners over anything else, including the convertible top. I'd much prefer that the car was a coupe. That's one of the reasons I'm half-assed looking for an RX-8. On that note, I've come full circle--the only reason I don't already have one is that GT models with nav and a 6-speed are a little more difficult to find.

The way it works for me is I dry up and then have a headache if I'm air conditioned too long. I don't mind being cooler when there is extreme heat.

I bought my 02 miata new and only had the top down once and bought a hardtop the 3rd or 4th week aftey buying the car. I never had the hartop off once I put it on...even when I traded it in on 06 I didn't know the condition of the soft top...they didn't ask anything and I didn't volunteer anything. They just looked and said, "yeah it has a soft top too".

Besides no A/C I like the cloth seats and 5spd.

Now that Texas has the $1.00 per pack tax, you could have those upgrades even sooner. :)

Two years ago I traded my 1994 in for the 2004 Mazdaspeed Miata, test drove the

2006 couple of weeks ago (6speed with suspension package). Found the car too soft, the speed handles a lot better. Even with the larger engine the 06 pales behind the speed's HP 178@6000 rpm vs 06's 170 @ 6700 rpm and torque 166 lb-ft@4500 rpm vs 06's 140 @ 5000 rpm (that's 18.5% more torque). They say the in the 06 your can raise or lower the roof with one hand while seated. But I think most guys that have had a Miata longer than two years can do that with any of them. As for looks what's with the cheesy plastic strip across the dash?(one season of cleaning pollen and dust off it'll start showing scratches. And personally the front of the hood ending where it does makes it look washing machine lid. On the plus side the 06 can come with cruise control.

Sorry for ranting but I had expected better from the 3yrs of hype.

to each his own, But I would take the 2006 over the 2004 turbo in a second. Why would anyone want a turbo if you can generate nearly the same power without it? and besides I like the look of the new car better.

The '04 MS will generate more torque, thus more power over a wide rev range. It'll only be at 6000+ (maybe 6500+) where the '06 makes more power. Plus, as has been written, the '04 has the stiffer, more athletic suspension. And some may prefer the interior of the NB to the NC's (I do). Looks are even more subjective. OTOH, I do prefer the NC's increased chassis stiffness and refinement. And I too am not particularly a turbo fan. To each his own.