The next-gen MX-5 Miata thread

[Conza]

I think the front headlights are about 15-20% too small, don't know about anyone else.

I'm just glad its out (finally), so we can hopefully see the Alfa Romeo Spider version asap. I wonder how soon until it's revealed, that's where this news story really ends for me.

EDIT: Also, silver wheels would've been nice to see, Red/Black doesn't work imo... Struggling to think of a colour that I like black wheels on, maybe I don't like black wheels at all.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I think the front headlights are about 15-20% too small, don't know about anyone else.

I'm just glad its out (finally), so we can hopefully see the Alfa Romeo Spider version asap. I wonder how soon until it's revealed, that's where this news story really ends for me.

EDIT: Also, silver wheels would've been nice to see, Red/Black doesn't work imo... Struggling to think of a colour that I like black wheels on, maybe I don't like black wheels at all.

The wheels are actually a bronze color.

 

[eSZee]

You sure? They look graphite/gunmetal They only look bronzeish to me when red reflects off them.

 

[CodeRedR51]

This looks more bronze to me, but it might have something reflecting off it.

Edit: It looks like the 17's are a different color.

 

[05XR8]

I like it full stop. Cant wait for it. Light weight motoring in a new package. 16"/17" wheels? Size brakes? Headlights? Tailights? No matter to me. Top down at a track day or top up in rain during rush hour traffic. Im gonna like it anyway. No one has made a car like this since 1989.

 

[Conza]

Yeah the ones R1600 show are the ones I think I saw in the launch, which I think are so dull.

The ones above that that eSZee are showing are better on all fronts, proper looking profile and size, and that silver makes a world of difference to me.

Maybe if the smaller ones had a smaller profile, they look like they're at 50+, the 17s look 35/40? not sure, huge difference just in the size though.

Wouldn't it be great if they made this car into a coupe? I know its not the MX-5/Miata way traditionally, but I think it could really steal some BRZ/FRS/GT86 sales if it had similar performance and a roof.

 

[05XR8]

Predicted price here in Australia, is about $40kAUD. THE NC is close to $45kAUD. The 25th Anniversary is $50kAUD. itll be a hard sell for younger people. I see more BRZs and WRXs in automatics. I think the styling is spot on to grab young customers. The NC was too soft and pricey. A shame it won't be priced in the mid-$20k range.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Maybe if the smaller ones had a smaller profile, they look like they're at 50+, the 17s look 35/40? not sure, huge difference just in the size though.

16's are 195/60/16 I believe.

Wouldn't it be great if they made this car into a coupe? I know its not the MX-5/Miata way traditionally, but I think it could really steal some BRZ/FRS/GT86 sales if it had similar performance and a roof.

Rumors swirling, maybe if we press on Mazda enough they'll do it. Either way I'm buying one.

 

[Omnis]

Why? My BRZ was 90% less fun on PSS. Too much grip for street and not really a track tire either.

One can never have too much grip.

 

[Nish]

16's are 195/60/16 I believe.

In the picture you last posted they are 195/50/16. Just clicked on it to blow it up in size.

 

[Nessy]

Oh, not sure if anyone has read this anywhere else, but the car does not have a glove box to save weight/space.

I don't use mine anyway other than to hold my insurance card/registration/lug nut tool.

My old S2000 didn't have one either (probably the same reason). Maybe it's got some other kind of clever cubbyholes/storage elsewhere, like the S2k did.

 

[Omnis]

Oh, not sure if anyone has read this anywhere else, but the car does not have a glove box to save weight/space.

I don't use mine anyway other than to hold my insurance card/registration/lug nut tool.

Yes it does. It's between the seats.

 

[homeforsummer]

Okay, the more and more I look at this the more I like it. And the fewer things I'd change.

I suspect the car would look better without the Mazda badges for a start - the one on the nose is definitely too large and the one on the trunk looks like it's been squeezed on as an afterthought. First act as an owner would be to remove those.

Proportions look better all the time. I also like that Mazda hasn't tried to smoosh the Kodo design language onto it too hard, as all the pre-launch renders showed it just didn't really work. Once again, the real thing is much better than the virtual workings of people who haven't a clue.

I'd also not have it in the metallic red of many of the launch cars. I'd match my old car and go for white. Final thing, and small touches I like: The central tachometer. I'm not crazy about the look of the dials themselves, which look ever so slightly cheap in all modern Mazdas, but the placement and that LCD/TFT screen to the left of the tach works well. It's also good they've just gone for a simple black/white screen in the instrument cluster rather than something too fancy and colourful.

 

[Nessy]

Yes it does. It's between the seats.

Yep, it appears to be sitting on top of the trans tunnel, at the back inbetween the seats, (same as the S2k).

 

[Conza]

First act as an owner would be to remove those.

I think that's a bit rash, I mean it'd be pretty badly modified once that's done, never seen badge removals have a happy ending, I think the boot one would've been better placed bellow the lid, but its OEM now, so changing it would be worse

PI also like that Mazda hasn't tried to smoosh the Kodo design language onto it too hard, as all the pre-launch renders showed it just didn't really work. Once again, the real thing is much better than the virtual workings of people who haven't a clue.

I don't know, right now for looks, I'd seriously rather a Mazda 2, 3 or 6, they all look the same I know, Mazda is going very Audi in its singular strategy, and like the R8 this car is breaking that mold, but the reason the mold worked for Audi (still is some may say), and will work for Mazda, is because they're sticking to a 'good' design, moving away from it here might've been necessary for distinction, but I think it isn't an improvement.

I'd also not have it in the metallic red of many of the launch cars. I'd match my old car and go for white.

Yeah I've always thought that MX-5 and Red go together really well, for every generation, which imo has gotten worse and worse in the looks department (once you have pop-ups, how you going to beat that?).

Anyone heard? 2 litre engine! Pity its a fair bit down on power, its RWD, would like it to have more than the latest B-segment hatches, even if its naturally aspirated. Should've stolen Alfa's engine, would've been the best part of the car; imo.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mazda/...2015-official-pics-revealed-pictures/page/3/0

 

[eSZee]

This looks more bronze to me, but it might have something reflecting off it.

Edit: It looks like the 17's are a different color.

I think that's the light and reflection playing tricks on us.

Wouldn't it be great if they made this car into a coupe? I know its not the MX-5/Miata way traditionally, but I think it could really steal some BRZ/FRS/GT86 sales if it had similar performance and a roof.

The current car is already on par with the BRZ in 0-60 and 1/4 times with 30hp+ less. I think the BRZ would be one of the reasons mazda WOULDN'T want a fixed roof mx-5. Then they wouldn't be able to use the "different segment" excuse when comparisons arise.

 

[niky]

The current car is already on par with the BRZ in 0-60 and 1/4 times with 30hp+ less.

Pretty much this. The old Miata, despite being... well... older than the BRZ, is only half-a-second down on It's funny how people think the MX-5 is inferior in performance when it isn't. Not really.

While I have done instrumented testing on both these cars, I didn't do them in quite the same conditions, so the results aren't comparable, but what I've seen matches up pretty well to the figures given above... the BRZ isn't really any faster in a straight line, except at higher speeds where the MX-5's aerodynamic deficiencies and that 500 rpm or so of extra power from the BRZ starts to come into its own. In terms of handling, the BRZ is definitely easier to control, (though the slalom results point at a lack of front end grip versus the MX-5... not surprised) though I wonder if the results would be the same against the stiffer PRHT.

With a newer, lighter, more compact MX-5, I think the balance in terms of track performance might swing back the other way.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think that's a bit rash, I mean it'd be pretty badly modified once that's done, never seen badge removals have a happy ending, I think the boot one would've been better placed bellow the lid, but its OEM now, so changing it would be worse

Because de-badging a car is a major, dramatic, unreversable modification...

I don't know, right now for looks, I'd seriously rather a Mazda 2, 3 or 6, they all look the same I know, Mazda is going very Audi in its singular strategy, and like the R8 this car is breaking that mold, but the reason the mold worked for Audi (still is some may say), and will work for Mazda, is because they're sticking to a 'good' design, moving away from it here might've been necessary for distinction, but I think it isn't an improvement.

Kodo gets progressively less appealing as the cars get smaller. That's perhaps unsurprising since it debuted on the Takeri concept and was presumably drawn up around this car - which since became the 6. The CX-5 looks a little less comfortable with it, the 3 less so again (the sedan is like a truncated 6) and the next-gen 2 even less so.

None are ugly, but Kodo involves big, flowing swathes of metalwork that work much better when they're applied to a car big enough to show them to their full effect. By the time you get to a Mazda2, or an MX-5 sized car, you end up with swoops and slashes that make a small car look too bulky.

Whereas with the departure on the MX-5, Mazda has managed to make the car look as small and dynamic as it actually is. And it's rather pleasing that there are no random slashes in the metalwork that don't serve any purpose. It doesn't look a lot like the NA, but it has the same simplicity to its design.

 

[eSZee]

Pretty much this. The old Miata, despite being... well... older than the BRZ, is only half-a-second down on It's funny how people think the MX-5 is inferior in performance when it isn't. Not really.

I think the CLUB version one of the magazines tested had a 0-60 listed at 6.1s. Now I know that straight line numbers are somewhat irrelevant with the MX-5 but still.

While I have done instrumented testing on both these cars, I didn't do them in quite the same conditions, so the results aren't comparable, but what I've seen matches up pretty well to the figures given above... the BRZ isn't really any faster in a straight line, except at higher speeds where the MX-5's aerodynamic deficiencies and that 500 rpm or so of extra power from the BRZ starts to come into its own. In terms of handling, the BRZ is definitely easier to control, (though the slalom results point at a lack of front end grip versus the MX-5... not surprised) though I wonder if the results would be the same against the stiffer PRHT.

With a newer, lighter, more compact MX-5, I think the balance in terms of track performance might swing back the other way.

The PRHT isn't any stiffer while being heavier. The metal roof still uses the same windshield mounting mechanism so rigidity isn't affected. With the mx5, all the body stiffness is done down low.
The soft suspension of the NC, thanks bean counters, makes it somewhat unpredictable during high speed direction change. Because body roll is pretty significant, sudden change in direction will unsettle the car.

Also, redline in the 2009+ mx-5 manual is 7200. So the difference is only 200rpm between the cars.

 

[niky]

The PRHT isn't any stiffer while being heavier.

I definitely agree with the weight, but stiffness? Even with the higher rigidity of the NC, you can certainly feel the difference with the top locked in place. Too bad I don't have the numbers to back that up, though...

The soft suspension of the NC, thanks bean counters, makes it somewhat unpredictable during high speed direction change. Because body roll is pretty significant, sudden change in direction will unsettle the car.

Definitely... post facelift, they tried to button it down, but that made it more edgy. IIRC, the BRZ feels more forgiving. Interestingly, the softer pre-2009 models felt like they had a gentler break-away and seemed friendlier at the limit.

Also, redline in the 2009+ mx-5 manual is 7200. So the difference is only 200rpm between the cars.

This is talking about the "200 hp" and the "30 hp" advantage the BRZ has over those last few revs...

 

[CodeRedR51]

Yes it does. It's between the seats.

Yep, it appears to be sitting on top of the trans tunnel, at the back inbetween the seats, (same as the S2k).

I guess it depends on where you are from, but I was referring to a typical glove box in the dashboard. I would refer to storage between the seats as a "storage cubby".

 

[Omnis]

Storage cubbies don't have doors. I wonder if it's a glove box, or perhaps it's just a trunk passthrough.

 

[eSZee]

Storage cubbies don't have doors. I wonder if it's a glove box, or perhaps it's just a trunk passthrough.

The roof is stored between the trunk and the cabin so it can't be a pass-through. The rear glove box will be the same as the NC and will probably hide the fuel door opener as well.










Some top-up action.

 

[Nessy]

Storage cubbies don't have doors. I wonder if it's a glove box, or perhaps it's just a trunk passthrough.

I would have thought it is a glovebox/storage cubby rather than a passthrough, the S2k had a door on it too, though it would have been nice with a passthrough as the boot space was woefully small (couldn't even fit my two berth tent in the boot).

I guess it depends on where you are from, but I was referring to a typical glove box in the dashboard. I would refer to storage between the seats as a "storage cubby".

Yeah i get what you mean (glovebox in the traditional sense). I don't think it's to save weight though - more of a space issue what with passengers airbag arrangement and such.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Yeah i get what you mean (glovebox in the traditional sense). I don't think it's to save weight though - more of a space issue what with passengers airbag arrangement and such.

This is Mazda we're talking about. I bet the 4 lugs thing was to save weight as well.

 

[Omnis]

The roof is stored between the trunk and the cabin so it can't be a pass-through. The rear glove box will be the same as the NC and will probably hide the fuel door opener as well.










Some top-up action.

1st video, 2:15 in:

 

[Nessy]

This is Mazda we're talking about. I bet the 4 lugs thing was to save weight as well.

Probably, that wouldn't surprise me in the least, but with regards to the glovebox thing, i doubt it.

[edit]

The seating position in the car looks quite low, and as with most sports cars the driver and passengers legs are pretty much extended out in the seated position, so therefore space is naturally at a premium.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I bet a glove box weighs more than 4 lug nuts & their studs.

 

[Nessy]

I bet a glove box weighs more than 4 lug nuts & their studs.

How big a glovebox and what exotic material?

TBH, a cost saving measure would make more sense than the minimal weight saved by deleting the glovebox, plus you're gaining more room in the process.

 

[Keef]

I bet a glove box weighs more than 4 lug nuts & their studs.

Do you mean the actual plastic box or all the associated design elements? Altogether, probably, but not by itself.