The next-gen MX-5 Miata thread

[Rusty*]

WHOO! Lighter!

This is wonderful news!

Yes lol thats right, light weight cars is something to be very happy about!
This is great as most other Maufacturer's are building there cars heavier and heavier all the time.
I would really love to see the new MX-5 in a hardtop style as well, the new model could be REALLY something great, RWD, Hard-top , 1.4 Liter- Turbocharged. This combination would be a instant classic!👍
GO MAZDA!!
Rusty*

 

[Wolfe]

I'm kinda with ///M-Spec. I want either high-strung or "balanced." If I'm driving something torquey that wheezes at 5500RPM, I'd prefer it to be a diesel (which can't help itself).

My 318i doesn't pick up power until 4000RPM, but it's also fairly torquey, I suppose -- it allows me to stay between 1500 and 2000RPM unless I'm climbing a hill, my economy gauge pegged at the "40mpg" mark. My bike's powerband starts where my BMW redlines, ~6000RPM, but it's so light that sub-powerband torque is still enough to scoot in front of traffic. It really depends on the city you live in, because I actually can't imagine having trouble outrunning cars here in any high-RPM, gutless car.

Er, one that has a decent-sized engine to begin with, that is. My old Renault at full bore used to just keep up with impatient traffic. Though with no tachometer and a timing chain, non-interference engine, I relied on valve float to tell me when to shift.

 

[YSSMAN]

...they still refuse to build a V8 (and current market conditions mean that they probably never will), their V6 is capped at 3.5 liters as opposed to the 3.7 and 3.8 liters that others are using now (and what a wonderful engine it is)...

Don't speak too soon, Honda's CEO is telling us that Acura will get a V8.

RE: Small Engine Size, Powerbands

I think I'd have to agree with M as well, its having the power right now, and its also fun to have to work it to get there, but you don't want to have to deal with either end of the spectrum all the time. It seems like most of the four-pots that I've dealt with have been between 1.6-2.4L, and while driving the hell out of Nissan Sentras and Honda Civics is fun, I think I prefer the slightly larger displacement that I had in my VW and Toyota with the strong mid-range power.

Although its odd having the same engine in my Celica and the family Camry, they feel completely different between the two cars.

 

[niky]

Well... the move upsize is basically forcing Honda to do that, but for the longest time, they refused to follow the market trends... (note the Ridgeline)...

Revvy versus torquey? I go for balance. I like having 7000+ rpm, but I also like having torque down low.

Currently, my motor's tuned to have torque starting at 3000 rpm, but with power all the way to 6500 rpm. We're thinking of raising the rev limiter to about 7000 rpm to take advantage of the bigger cams. 180 hp out of an undersquare (as opposed to Honda's typically oversquare high-revvers) 2.0... whew...

Right now... it's perfect. Just have to lose some weight off the car, now.

 

[EA11R]

Although its odd having the same engine in my Celica and the family Camry, they feel completely different between the two cars.

Lovely thread, I feel I should downgrade it for an instant: The same engine in different cars is not anything new, and a result of the difficulty of building a modern engine. It's all about your attitude: Your Noble hasn't got a Mondeo engine, your Mondeo has a Noble engine!

Regardless, Mazda: Exactly what does Mazda plan to do to lighten the MX-5? A smaller engine is lighter, but would it really be that much lighter? Clearly, they've won the award for conspicuous merit with the mirror-lightening on the current MX-5, so there can't be that much mass left to remove without... removing stuff. I guess they can lighten the drivetrain parts, being less burdened with a weaker engine, but that just seals the drivetrain for life. I want to belive it, I really do, but there must be a catch.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Lovely thread, I feel I should downgrade it for an instant: The same engine in different cars is not anything new, and a result of the difficulty of building a modern engine. It's all about your attitude: Your Noble hasn't got a Mondeo engine, your Mondeo has a Noble engine!

Regardless, Mazda: Exactly what does Mazda plan to do to lighten the MX-5? A smaller engine is lighter, but would it really be that much lighter? Clearly, they've won the award for conspicuous merit with the mirror-lightening on the current MX-5, so there can't be that much mass left to remove without... removing stuff. I guess they can lighten the drivetrain parts, being less burdened with a weaker engine, but that just seals the drivetrain for life. I want to belive it, I really do, but there must be a catch.

Erm, honey, I shrunk the Miata.

 

[the Interceptor]

I think there's not that much in it with the engine, but one can say with good certainty that they won't become bigger in the next model. I suppose they'll make it lighter by keeping the body small and by using clever building techniques and light materials.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I would have to say that they may be shrinking it, perhaps to NB or even NA size.

 

[Famine]

Lovely thread, I feel I should downgrade it for an instant: The same engine in different cars is not anything new, and a result of the difficulty of building a modern engine. It's all about your attitude: Your Noble hasn't got a Mondeo engine, your Mondeo has a Noble engine!

I don't know about anyone else, but my Mondeo has half an Aston V12.

 

[homeforsummer]

Regardless, Mazda: Exactly what does Mazda plan to do to lighten the MX-5? A smaller engine is lighter, but would it really be that much lighter? Clearly, they've won the award for conspicuous merit with the mirror-lightening on the current MX-5, so there can't be that much mass left to remove without... removing stuff. I guess they can lighten the drivetrain parts, being less burdened with a weaker engine, but that just seals the drivetrain for life. I want to belive it, I really do, but there must be a catch.

It wasn't in the original article, but I'm sure I read somewhere that they intend to use higher tensile strength steel, so they can get away with using it more sparingly. Less steel = one hell of a lot less weight (incidentally, the article stated that they'd decided against aluminium as it was too expensive and wanted to keep the car cheap). A smaller engine should be lighter if it's being designed to be lighter. If it's an alloy engine say, and the block is designed as a 1.4 and not a sleeved down 1.6 or 1.8, then there's no reason why it can't be very light.

Also, they may simply make the car a bit smaller again. That would immediately result in a lighter body. They can probably find gains in things like seats and alloy wheels too, which can be unusually heavy in many cars.

If Mazda can lose 100kg off a supermini (the 2) then I see no reason why it's unacheivable in a 2-seater sports car that's designed to be light. Hell, I mean the Mazda 2's quoted weight is something like 1030 KG for the 1.3 - Mazda are wanting the MX5 presumably between 50-90kg lighter than this, and the 2 has a roof, airbags everywhere, extra seats, way more glass etc - it should be easy!

 

[the Interceptor]

They could use a few aluminum panels as well, Audi lightened the current TT by that.

 

[homeforsummer]

As I mentioned, they consider aluminium too expensive. They'd be better off using some sort of vacuum formed plasic panels, like smart does.

 

[the Interceptor]

Sorry, missed that!

 

[niky]

RE: Mazda2... 100 kilograms from downgrading a car from semi-subcompact to supermini ain't that hard.

And isn't the MX-5 engine already alloy? I guess they could do the BMW thing and have a magnesium-aluminum engine. The only easy way towards lightening at this point is downsizing... smaller body, a return to smaller wheel sizes (15" FTW!) and probably going down to a 1.8 liter or 1.6 liter engine... it would be interesting to see an MX-5 with a high-revving 1.6... but it'd be more likely for them to use a turbocharged engine.

 

[homeforsummer]

RE: Mazda2... 100 kilograms from downgrading a car from semi-subcompact to supermini ain't that hard.

The old Mazda 2 isn't actually all that much bigger - 40mm longer, 15mm narrower - the only real difference is height, where it's 55mm taller. Not a lot in a world where average family cars sometimes increase in length by 200mm and similar.

Actually, looking at the figures, the previous Mazda 2 isn't actually that much heavier either - all models are less than 1100kg. I think when Mazda refers to the "100kg less" figure, it's in comparison to rivals. Even the new Fiesta, based on the 2's platform, somehow weights significantly more according to Autocar's review.

But regardless, if they can do it with the 2, they can do it with the MX5.

And isn't the MX-5 engine already alloy? I guess they could do the BMW thing and have a magnesium-aluminum engine. The only easy way towards lightening at this point is downsizing... smaller body, a return to smaller wheel sizes (15" FTW!) and probably going down to a 1.8 liter or 1.6 liter engine... it would be interesting to see an MX-5 with a high-revving 1.6... but it'd be more likely for them to use a turbocharged engine.

I think the current MX5's engine is alloy, but what I meant was that if they kept it alloy, then a small capacity engine should be lighter. I mean, at the moment you can only get a 1.8 and a 2.0 - so a turbo 1.4 and a 1.6 say should easily cut some weight off.

 

[Tornado]

I don't know about anyone else, but my Mondeo has half an Aston V12.

My engine is 3/4ths of a Corvette motor.

 

[Kryz11]

How about miata with a ROTARY engine straight from the RX8? Because people would pay bit extra for more power in that car. I would.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Rotary...no thanks

 

[///M-Spec]

I don't know about anyone else, but my Mondeo has half an Aston V12.

My engine is 3/4ths of a Corvette motor.

My car has half a McLaren F1 V12. Sorta.


M

 

[YSSMAN]

How about miata with a ROTARY engine straight from the RX8? Because people would pay bit extra for more power in that car. I would.

NEIN!

The Miata is always better off with the I4, a better power band for "novice" drivers, more reliable, cheaper too. The RENESIS can stay in the RX cars, I'll keep my MZR (or whatever class this will be) engines in the little one...

 

[homeforsummer]

How about miata with a ROTARY engine straight from the RX8? Because people would pay bit extra for more power in that car. I would.

I wouldn't. Hey I know, let's make our simple sports car complicated, expensive, thirsty and peaky!

 

[niky]

The new MZR/Duratec is a wonderful engine series... and it should stay... note the manic MZR DISI in the Mazdaspeed3... the Cosworth Duratecs in the Caterhams... it's a good series of engines, with lots of potential, either way.

Now if they could only fix that exhaust note...

 

[GT Pro]

'Lighter and cleaner', now if only every other car-maker had the intelligence to do the same.

 

[///M-Spec]

'Lighter and cleaner', now if only every other car-maker had the intelligence to do the same.

Let me make it perfectly clear that as a car guy, I want lighter and cleaner cars.

But I think it's grossly unfair to say manufacturers are unintelligent because cars are getting heavier. Car companies are filled with very, very smart people, though more of them should be working in engineering rather than marketing, but I digress.

Cars are getting heavier because car companies are trying give people what they want.

People want features, well features aren't weightless. A set of power front seats in your typical family car weighs around 150 lbs. More for heated ones. More for leather ones. All the power moonroofs, rear seat HVAC, DVD nav units, iPod connectors, backup cameras, active cruise control, blah blah adds up too.

People want safety, well airbags aren't weightless and strong unit bodies with perfectly formed crumple zones require a lot of high strength steel.

People want refinement, well that makes the car heavier too; stiff unit bodies with high torsional and bending rigidity, multi-link independent suspensions mounted on rubber isolated subframes, sound deadening, fancy plastic, liquid-filled heavy duty mounts, thick glass, heavy gauge body panels, etc.. it all adds up fast.

People want performance, big engines, big brakes, big wheels... you see where this is going.

But the number one reason why cars are getting heavier is because they keep getting bigger! Why? Because people have bigger asses and have more stuff!

Sure, they can make everything out of aluminum, titanium, carbon-fiber/CFP or other exotic materials, but people also want reasonably priced cars.

At the end of the day, the weight of cars is entirely market-driven. It has nothing to do with whether or not their engineers can figure out how to make cars lighter. They already know. But they have to balance weight savings vs. everything else that a consumer wants, with pricing being the number one consideration. This means every car is a series of compromise between performance and cost.

Car companies make decisions based on what sells. So the only person to blame on how heavy a car is, is the person that's buying it.


M

 

[Wolfe]

...I think it's grossly unfair to say manufacturers are unintelligent because cars are getting heavier.

Cars are getting heavier because car companies are trying give people what they want.

...the number one reason why cars are getting heavier is because they keep getting bigger! Why? Because people have bigger asses and have more stuff!

That number one reason also applies to why manufacturers are "unintelligent." All of the reasons for adding weight you mentioned other than this one make sense enough, but apart from the desire to make a new car seem "better" by imbuing it with only "positive" qualities (an "increase" always being better than a "decrease," including the way we measure fuel economy), there's no real reason to make a car larger. There are already large cars and small cars. Those who want a smaller car will buy a smaller car. Those who want a larger car will buy a larger car.

In slowly incrementing the size of their cars, all the manufacturers have done is create a market of excessively bulky vehicles and more classes of "subcompacts." It's a silly cycle.

I think if manufacturers picked a target size/weight and stuck to it, it could encourage weight-conscious engineering, meticulous refinement, and improved efficiency. Just look at the 911. Like everything else it's gotten heavier, but in 40 years it only gained about 1000lbs. and grew about half a foot longer. My car's youngest offspring, the E90/E92, managed the same weight increase in half the time. Same with the VW GTI.

 

[Tornado]

I don't think the Corvette is particularly heavier than the original model, though I'm guessing it is larger.

 

[harrytuttle]

This is one of those questions that I fail to see why it's so hard to answer. If you throw more features on a car, it's going to get heavier. If you use more exotic materials, it's going to get more expensive. However, if you take a little more time with your engineering and try to eliminate redundant components and try to get things to serve multiple functions, you start losing weight really fast, really inexpensively. Gordon Murray did this to great effect on the McLaren F1, and I expect he did it to even greater effect on the T25. Why forethought is a foregone conclusion is beyond me.

 

[homeforsummer]

Car companies make decisions based on what sells. So the only person to blame on how heavy a car is, is the person that's buying it.

I agree with this, and the majority of your post. At the end of the day, car manufacturers are selling the cars that people want. The general public, I think it's fair to say, are for the most part simply too selfish to want the manufacturers to build lighter and more efficient cars if it's at the cost of their comfort and equipment.

However, Wolfe has an excellent point about the size of cars.

I think if manufacturers picked a target size/weight and stuck to it, it could encourage weight-conscious engineering, meticulous refinement, and improved efficiency. Just look at the 911. Like everything else it's gotten heavier, but in 40 years it only gained about 1000lbs. and grew about half a foot longer. My car's youngest offspring, the E90/E92, managed the same weight increase in half the time. Same with the VW GTI.

I've never understood why cars in their own classes have got bigger, beyond simple marketing reasons. People have always been able to simply buy a bigger car from the same manufacturer if they needed it, so there is no engineering reason at all as to why a model should get bigger with each replacement.

The previous Vauxhall Astra (Mk4 I think) was reported to be as big as the Cavalier that preceded the first generation Vectra in the UK. The current Vectra is pretty close to the size of the old Omega. Using the VW Golf example, the Mk4 and Mk5 Polo were already roughly the same size as the Mk1 Golf. None of these cars needed to grow - I strongly suspect they only did so so that the marketing department could say "Look! The Golf/Astra is bigger! More space for luggage/people/bigger engines!"

You mentioned the 911 as an example of a car that hasn't really grown - and it's a great one. 911s look tiny in modern traffic - not just low, but physically small. And yet they've taken on all the modern advancements without any difficulty. It hasn't grown much in any respect (save for weight, but roughly 4-500kg isn't too bad in 40 years, and a trend of growth that's unlikely to continue) but it's more comfortable, more safe and quicker than it ever was.

 

[Wolfe]

I don't think the Corvette is particularly heavier than the original model, though I'm guessing it is larger.

True. Less than 500lbs. between the C6 and the C1. The size increase is similar to the 911, also -- about half a foot longer, wheelbase a bit longer, about as wide, and lower to the ground.

Source for all of this.

 

[niky]

Not hard to do with sportscars with no backseat (Corvette) or merely the caricature of one (Porsche).

The growing market may be to blame... I mean, people are much bigger now than in years before, but then again, I've never fit into a 1970's Japanese compact... not even when I had a relatively slim 30" waistline.