The next-gen MX-5 Miata thread

[homeforsummer]

They should have only made a few hundred for each market or even sell the body panels so you can do the conversion yourself. They paid to make the molds to stamp the body panels and the molds to make the rear quarter glass / rear widow , making the molds is not cheap so the more they made it would spread the cost of the molds out.

Half million yen is not alot its about USD$5k( converter rate from USD to yen in 2003 is about the same as today and with inflation it would be under USD$7K) the Roadster RF in Japan is ¥3.million and the Roadster is ¥2.54million, ¥.85 million difference which is more then the NB Roadster Coupe difference I don't see a hefty premium.

That price difference is inaccurate, because in Japan the base soft-top is the 1.5 and the base RF is the 2.0 (and if it's anything like the UK market, there'll be an equipment difference between the basic versions of each too).

For a more accurate picture, the difference between a 2019 Miata Club and a 2019 Miata RF Club is $2155, or about a 7% difference. Not only is that monetarily less than the inflation-adjusted $7k you quote between the Roadsters (which aren't like-for-like anyway), but a significantly smaller relative price difference - the Roadster to Roadster Coupe difference was about 27%.

So my point still stands. The costs of producing a mold for a couple of hundred fairly simple steel pressings at a non-automated production level is going to be very different from mass-producing them on the same (or a different) line with the tens of thousands of other MX-5s. Economies of scale doesn't always work if unit costs are above a certain level (it's why Sergio Marchionne asked people to stop buying the Fiat 500e, because selling more was costing FCA disproportionately more).

Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to see more of these things. But there's likely a very good reason Mazda didn't build more of them back then, and has never built any since. I strongly suspect it's the same reason that motivates companies like BMW and Lexus to build soft-top versions of their coupes i8 and LC, and why the Boxster outsells the Cayman: in much of the sports car segment, there's far greater demand for soft-tops than fixed-roof cars.

 

[RocZX]

That price difference is inaccurate, because in Japan the base soft-top is the 1.5 and the base RF is the 2.0 (and if it's anything like the UK market, there'll be an equipment difference between the basic versions of each too).

For a more accurate picture, the difference between a 2019 Miata Club and a 2019 Miata RF Club is $2155, or about a 7% difference. Not only is that monetarily less than the inflation-adjusted $7k you quote between the Roadsters (which aren't like-for-like anyway), but a significantly smaller relative price difference - the Roadster to Roadster Coupe difference was about 27%.

So my point still stands. The costs of producing a mold for a couple of hundred fairly simple steel pressings at a non-automated production level is going to be very different from mass-producing them on the same (or a different) line with the tens of thousands of other MX-5s. Economies of scale doesn't always work if unit costs are above a certain level (it's why Sergio Marchionne asked people to stop buying the Fiat 500e, because selling more was costing FCA disproportionately more).

Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to see more of these things. But there's likely a very good reason Mazda didn't build more of them back then, and has never built any since. I strongly suspect it's the same reason that motivates companies like BMW and Lexus to build soft-top versions of their coupes i8 and LC, and why the Boxster outsells the Cayman: in much of the sports car segment, there's far greater demand for soft-tops than fixed-roof cars.

Didn't know that base ND Roadster RF in Japan come with 2.0, I was just comparing the starting prices for Roadster and Roadster RF base trims. The NC with PRHT also was $2-3K extra but they made thousands of them and they are also going to make thousands of ND RF. But Mazda only made 179 NB Roadster Coupes paying only ¥.5 million more(for the base trim) was a steal not just cause of the hardtop but for the rarity if it. You can buy a special edition of a car all that is a different is paint, maybe wheels and a sticker/badge you will likely be paying about/more then ¥500k/USD$4.5k/£3.5k for it.

But my initial question didn't have to do with the price of it but Why would Mazda waste money on research and development to make it then not make more of them or sell them worldwide? Not like they would have not sold

 

[Danoff]

there's far greater demand for soft-tops than fixed-roof cars.

 

[homeforsummer]

Didn't know that base ND Roadster RF in Japan come with 2.0, I was just comparing the starting prices for Roadster and Roadster RF base trims. The NC with PRHT also was $2-3K extra but they thousands of them and they are also going to make thousands of ND RF. But Mazda only made 179 NB Roadster Coupes paying only ¥.5 million more(for the base trim) was a steal not just cause of the hardtop but for the rarity if it. You can buy a special edition of a car all that is a different is paint, maybe wheels and a sticker/badge you will likely be paying about/more then ¥500k/USD$4.5k/£3.5k for it.

These numbers are starting to confuse me, but again, for the original NB Roadster/Roadster Coupe prices, the figure to look at isn't the half a million yen, but the fact that half a million yen was at the time an increase in more than a quarter of the price of the base car.

$2-3k on an NC PHRT wasn't a whole quarter of the car's base price. The difference today between two MX-5s of the same spec in roadster and RF trim is not a quarter of the car's base price. It's not an accurate comparison to keep repeating the half a million yen figure like it's insignificant, because in a 2003 context, it was a significant number. If a Miata Club RF had the same relative increase today it would be more than $37,500 rather than the $32,345 it actually is. I wonder how many RFs they'd sell if it was a grand more than a Mustang GT?...

But my initial question didn't have to do with the price of it but Why would Mazda waste money on research and development to make it then not make more of them or sell them worldwide? Not like they would have not sold

I've already been over this:

The costs of producing a mold for a couple of hundred fairly simple steel pressings at a non-automated production level is going to be very different from mass-producing them on the same (or a different) line with the tens of thousands of other MX-5s. Economies of scale doesn't always work if unit costs are above a certain level

Actual R&D was, I suspect, relatively small. Given the small volumes I'd be surprised if the car needed to be homologated in the same way as the soft-tops and go through all the rigorous testing of a full-scale production car (let alone worldwide testing), and given the way it was implemented I'd be surprised if the design process was any more involved than you'd get from a bunch of people at a metal fabrication business doing the same.

So it comes back to what I said above. Doing just a few hundred cars would be cheaper than building a whole new production line (or element of a line) for a hard-top car, but, expensive enough to require a price more than a quarter above the equivalent roadster in order to make it worthwhile.

To quote myself again:

TL;DR is they apparently had no intention to sell more than a few hundred, and doing it manually and charging a hefty premium was the best way of doing that

And:

But there's likely a very good reason Mazda didn't build more of them back then, and has never built any since. I strongly suspect it's the same reason that motivates companies like BMW and Lexus to build soft-top versions of their coupes i8 and LC, and why the Boxster outsells the Cayman: in much of the sports car segment, there's far greater demand for soft-tops than fixed-roof cars.

Building on a bigger scale would have required far greater R&D investment, far greater production investment, weighed against the risk that not enough people would have actually bought them because people don't really buy hard-tops like this.

The other, much simpler way of putting it: If it made sense for Mazda they'd have done it by now.

Ask your countrymen! Every time I ask car companies why they turn coupes into convertibles the answer is always "America".

 

[Keef]

Ask your countrymen! Every time I ask car companies why they turn coupes into convertibles the answer is always "America".

I don't get it either. I blame SoCal, Vegas, Texas, and Florida. The rest of the country is cold as balls for 6 months of the year.

 

[dice1998]

I don't get it either. I blame SoCal, Vegas, Texas, and Florida. The rest of the country is cold as balls for 6 months of the year.

Hater.

 

[Crash]

So my point still stands. The costs of producing a mold for a couple of hundred fairly simple steel pressings at a non-automated production level is going to be very different from mass-producing them on the same (or a different) line with the tens of thousands of other MX-5s.

Actual R&D was, I suspect, relatively small. Given the small volumes I'd be surprised if the car needed to be homologated in the same way as the soft-tops and go through all the rigorous testing of a full-scale production car (let alone worldwide testing), and given the way it was implemented I'd be surprised if the design process was any more involved than you'd get from a bunch of people at a metal fabrication business doing the same.

So it comes back to what I said above. Doing just a few hundred cars would be cheaper than building a whole new production line (or element of a line) for a hard-top car, but, expensive enough to require a price more than a quarter above the equivalent roadster in order to make it worthwhile.

These.

To add on. There are different types of molds with different expected lifespans, with the general correlation that the longer the molds and tooling last, the more expensive they get (unsurprisingly). If Mazda had only intend to sell a small amount of the coupe, they will then tailor the tooling to last that specific production amount, so it's not as simple as a tool or mold can be used for any amount of production run. That's one of the considerations that an engineer setting up the production system will think about and trade.

Like HFS said, I doubt there was a big R&D program needed for the coupe. Of the big "tests", the primary crash testing would already have been done with the front, rear and side, on a less structurally strong basis as well. There would have been no change in emissions. So any tests would be some road tests to test the NVH and maybe change the suspension tuning now that the system stiffness has changed a bit.

I don't get it either. I blame SoCal, Vegas, Texas, and Florida. The rest of the country is cold as balls for 6 months of the year.

I rode in a convertible a few years back on a beautiful drive when it was a bit nippy, but otherwise clear. With the top down and heat blowing at you, the 360 degree scenery passing by you and the open air, I got the appeal of a convertible.

 

[homeforsummer]

I rode in a convertible a few years back on a beautiful drive when it was a bit nippy, but otherwise clear. With the top down and heat blowing at you, the 360 degree scenery passing by you and the open air, I got the appeal of a convertible.

I miss it whenever the weather's good. The UK never really gets hot enough not to put the top down when it's nice out, so aside from last year when it was in the garage, I did go a couple of summers where I didn't need to put the roof up for a couple of weeks. If there wasn't stuff falling from the sky I'd put it down at night, in cold weather, anything. Managed 600 of the 800-mile Iceland ring road with the roof down a few years back

I can understand why people don't like them, and my perfect MX-5 would still probably be one of the NB coupes because the MX-5 really is compromised structurally by not having a roof. But sometimes there's just no driving experience quite like having the roof down.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The British love them and, supposedly, that's what Bob Hall asked Mazda for

I used to have the roof down virtually all the time unless it was actually raining. It was never that cold and at speed the heaters keep one toasty-warm.

 

[homeforsummer]

The British love them and, supposedly, that's what Bob Hall asked Mazda for

I think @Danoff was asking about convertibles in general (as that's what I was talking about), but for the MX-5 specifically, you're right - all the cars the MX-5 was inspired by were open-top so the MX-5 was too.

But generally, the reason coupes are often turned into roadsters (and why manufacturers tend to prioritise roadsters and open-topped cars in some markets) is because there's generally more demand in that segment for cars with folding roofs. And I reckon @Keef is probably correct that it's mainly one or two regions that spur most of that demand.

 

[mustafur]

I have only had one convertible, and despite that car being total crap(Astra Turbo) the top being down was a good thing.

The combination of Heated Seats and the Roof down makes sense in any sceniaro where there is no rain.

 

[RocZX]

These numbers are starting to confuse me, but again, for the original NB Roadster/Roadster Coupe prices, the figure to look at isn't the half a million yen, but the fact that half a million yen was at the time an increase in more than a quarter of the price of the base car.

$2-3k on an NC PHRT wasn't a whole quarter of the car's base price. The difference today between two MX-5s of the same spec in roadster and RF trim is not a quarter of the car's base price. It's not an accurate comparison to keep repeating the half a million yen figure like it's insignificant, because in a 2003 context, it was a significant number. If a Miata Club RF had the same relative increase today it would be more than $37,500 rather than the $32,345 it actually is. I wonder how many RFs they'd sell if it was a grand more than a Mustang GT?...

I understand what you are saying that the % increase on the NB Roadster coupe was high. So more expensive car can change more for the same item then a cheaper car cause the % increase would be less?

( on a side note the Type S trim Coupe was only 17% increase, it had the 1.8l and based the RS trim- JDM'03 Roadster brochure . And the base trim NB coupe is 17% increase from the SP trim not the base M trim

Actual R&D was, I suspect, relatively small. Given the small volumes I'd be surprised if the car needed to be homologated in the same way as the soft-tops and go through all the rigorous testing of a full-scale production car (let alone worldwide testing), and given the way it was implemented I'd be surprised if the design process was any more involved than you'd get from a bunch of people at a metal fabrication business doing the same.

So it comes back to what I said above. Doing just a few hundred cars would be cheaper than building a whole new production line (or element of a line) for a hard-top car, but, expensive enough to require a price more than a quarter above the equivalent roadster in order to make it worthwhile.

To quote myself again:
And:
Building on a bigger scale would have required far greater R&D investment, far greater production investment, weighed against the risk that not enough people would have actually bought them because people don't really buy hard-tops like this.

The other, much simpler way of putting it: If it made sense for Mazda they'd have done it by now.

Again I understand Mazda would have to do more work if they made mass production or wanted to sell the in other companies.
But what I'm saying is don't you find it odd they only made 179, it's weird number? I didn't some research (searchig in English didn't help but searching it in Japanese did)and found this Japanese blog talking about NB Roadster Coupe it said Mazda was going to make 800 Coupes but do to a fire at the plant they stopped production of it cause it was not a priority. Mazda did plan to make more but do to an unpredictable event they didn't.

 

[Tornado]

I don't get it either. I blame SoCal, Vegas, Texas, and Florida. The rest of the country is cold as balls for 6 months of the year.

 

[JohnBM01]

CONFESSION - For some reason lately, I've gone on a Miata/MX-5 trip. Maybe it started when the Miata turned 30 earlier this year. Maybe it started when I skinned another MX-5 Cup Car for Assetto Corsa. No matter what, I've grown much more fond of the Miata than I almost ever have.

I seen the Mazda Miata ND RF before. I actually have not really been into convertibles and roadsters much, but I do think the Miata looks better as a hard top rather than a convertible. This is still a fine sports car.

 

[Danoff]

Been seeing the NDs around for a while now. I have to say that it looks so much more sports car, so much meaner, so much more serious, than the previous generations. Styling-wise it has improved its road presence a TON compared to earlier models. Especially from far away, it's eye-catching.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Been seeing the NDs around for a while now. I have to say that it looks so much more sports car, so much meaner, so much more serious, than the previous generations. Styling-wise it has improved its road presence a TON compared to earlier models. Especially from far away, it's eye-catching.

+1. I saw a Soul Red RF during my commute yesterday. When it first popped up in the corner of my eye (I saw the rear of it) I actually thought it was something like an 80s Ferrari because of the buttresses and just-right rear end. It's definitely a more exotic shape than previous generations.

 

[dice1998]

Our only 30th Anniversary MX-5 came in today. Already spoken for. It's probably the only one I'll see outside of a cars and coffee event.

 

[niky]

^Those are pretty, but the pricing here is a bit ridiculous. Not quite sure the paint and kit justify the extra.

-

Finally had a go in an ND2. Just need to confirm with those who've driven both ND1 and ND2 some impressions:

1. They've fixed the steering. Feels firmer and transmits better (though not NA better) road feel).
2. The suspension has been stiffened up to RF levels. Most of the huge squat, dive and roll movements feel toned down except when you really push hard.
3. The new engine feels quite good. That feeling of ungodly inertia in the 2.0 is gone, replaced by a free-revving nature. Seems to like being short-shifted, but also game to rev out to the 7.5k cut.
4. Slides feel a bit easier to control (thanks to the stiffer suspension)

Now give it some cams and it's bang on as a next-gen S2k. Only with better control.

 

[homeforsummer]

Finally had a go in an ND2. Just need to confirm with those who've driven both ND1 and ND2 some impressions:

I'd say it's not taken a great leap in any one area. The engine is probably the biggest difference, as it does now feel happy at the red line (and it's now really quite quick).

The steering doesn't feel hugely different to me, and on track at least I noticed some of the snappiness I experienced in the ND1 - the car would grip, roll, grip some more, roll some more, and then whoop, you have to give it a stab of corrective lock with very little notice.

I think it's mainly a tyre thing. 205s are hardly wide by modern standards but they're quite meaty for the size and weight of the car. My old NA on 185s was so much more progressive when it started moving about, and thanks to the better steering, easier to drive up to the limits of the tyres. 1.5s here get 195s, which I suspect helps a bit, but I've still not had a good go on suitable roads or on track in a 1.5 to see how much difference it makes.

 

[dice1998]

I'd say it's not taken a great leap in any one area. The engine is probably the biggest difference, as it does now feel happy at the red line (and it's now really quite quick).

The steering doesn't feel hugely different to me, and on track at least I noticed some of the snappiness I experienced in the ND1 - the car would grip, roll, grip some more, roll some more, and then whoop, you have to give it a stab of corrective lock with very little notice.

I think it's mainly a tyre thing. 205s are hardly wide by modern standards but they're quite meaty for the size and weight of the car. My old NA on 185s was so much more progressive when it started moving about, and thanks to the better steering, easier to drive up to the limits of the tyres. 1.5s here get 195s, which I suspect helps a bit, but I've still not had a good go on suitable roads or on track in a 1.5 to see how much difference it makes.

Body roll may also depend on the spec of ND you get.

Here in the states, a Club MX-5 can get you a Limited Slip Differential and chassis bracing (Strut tower bracing to be exact), Bilstein Dampers, Brembos and BBS Wheels.

The MX-5 Grand Touring can get some of these features as long as you get what is called the GT-S Package and you can only get it with a 3-pedal car and that gets you the Bilsteins, LSD and Bracing which, on the track, may dramatically improve how the car feels through corners.

 

[homeforsummer]

Here in the states, a Club MX-5 can get you a Limited Slip Differential and chassis bracing (Strut tower bracing to be exact), Bilstein Dampers, Brembos and BBS Wheels.

Similar spec in the UK, depending on the model. LSD is standard on 2-litre cars, Bilsteins/bracing standard on Sport spec, Brembos/BBS on one or two special editions.

I think every 2-litre car I've tried so far has had Bilsteins. They still roll like crazy...

 

[niky]

I think every 2-litre car I've tried so far has had Bilsteins. They still roll like crazy...

View attachment 835320​

Felt the roll was quite tremendous on pre-RF cars. After the release of the RF, they were still soft, but liveable as long as you weren't at full attack. (I have gotten an RF crossed up due to the snap you've mentioned).

I guess it's just an impression granted by the engine. The package feels a bit more... cohesive?

 

[homeforsummer]

It's certainly getting better. It's mainly a grip/body control imbalance. I actually find them a bit better in the wet, because grips runs out sooner. That way the chassis doesn't load up to its absolute maximum and then snap into roll oversteer.

I'm sure a set of good coilovers would cure it almost immediately. The Global Cup car I tried a few years back transformed it. A street compromise between the two would be excellent - lower, stiffer, less chassis flex, decent seats. The race car had better steering feel too, which I assume was largely a geometry thing.

 

[niky]

It's certainly getting better. It's mainly a grip/body control imbalance. I actually find them a bit better in the wet, because grips runs out sooner. That way the chassis doesn't load up to its absolute maximum and then snap into roll oversteer.

I'm sure a set of good coilovers would cure it almost immediately. The Global Cup car I tried a few years back transformed it. A street compromise between the two would be excellent - lower, stiffer, less chassis flex, decent seats. The race car had better steering feel too, which I assume was largely a geometry thing.

It's the steering feel that's getting to me. Because I can't imagine I'm imagining the improvements versus the first ones. But then again, I am not sure how our suspension specs differ to US or UK specs, because we only have two trim levels (one Roadster and one RF) and no selection of options or load-outs... (except the transmission) so it's hard to say how they compare.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Saw a 30th Anniversary yesterday while at the beach, which was on dealer plates. It looked beautiful!

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Is the orange supposed to be a nod to the 787B? I'm not a big fan of it. I wish they had brought back either of the following for an anniversary ND:

Montego Blue:

British Racing Green:

I think the ND is the only MX-5 yet released without a green option. That is criminal!!!

Alternatively, I wish Mazda would bring back Sunrise Red and Competition Yellow Mica. What a gorgeous paint colors those were.

 

[dice1998]

Saw a 30th Anniversary yesterday while at the beach, which was on dealer plates. It looked beautiful!

View attachment 841405

The more I see the RF, the more I think the Orange is too much. I also forgot that I never posted more pics of that customer's MX-5 before he/she picked it up:

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The color-matched vent rings look a little....pep boys....

 

[ProjectWHaT]

Speaking of the vents, I finally realized after 5 years the vents are supposed to mirror the taillights.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Is the orange supposed to be a nod to the 787B? I'm not a big fan of it. I wish they had brought back either of the following for an anniversary ND:

Montego Blue:
British Racing Green:

I think the ND is the only MX-5 yet released without a green option. That is criminal!!!

Alternatively, I wish Mazda would bring back Sunrise Red and Competition Yellow Mica. What a gorgeous paint colors those were.

They should freshen up the color options. Outside of the soul red, the color options seem a bit flat. 2 whites? 2 grays? black and a blue that looks like gray? I give them a solid meh rating.