Discussion
It's more about keeping your speed constant than booting it, to be honest.
They're not that fast (at all) but they do handle well and sound ok for a 4 pot. Get a 1.8 to lessen the impact of the performance deficit and if in doubt, keep your foot in and you'll be fine.
Go for a Mk1 as they're a bit lighter than the later cars. I booted mine up a by-pass near here alongside Fruitcake in his Mk1 and up to a true 70mph he was 1 car length ahead.
Also on the trip to Le Mans this year, I used a whole tank of fuel more than him in about 1600 miles and the cars had the same amount of stuff in.
They're not that fast (at all) but they do handle well and sound ok for a 4 pot. Get a 1.8 to lessen the impact of the performance deficit and if in doubt, keep your foot in and you'll be fine.
Go for a Mk1 as they're a bit lighter than the later cars. I booted mine up a by-pass near here alongside Fruitcake in his Mk1 and up to a true 70mph he was 1 car length ahead.
Also on the trip to Le Mans this year, I used a whole tank of fuel more than him in about 1600 miles and the cars had the same amount of stuff in.
I have both (well, my S2 is a Coupe) and can honestly say I very much doubt you will regret it.
Each car is equally good, just in such different ways. Each is excellent.
The biggest difference in my opinion, is the feeling of weight. The MX-5 just feels unbelievably light and nimble compared to the S2. The steering, the clutch, the brakes, even the minor controls.
Speed wise, yes the S2 is faster but sometimes the MX-5 doesn't 'feel' that far behind. It's all about perceived speed, to 'feel' like I'm going as fast in the S2 as I am in the MX-5 gets me into very illegal territory.
In terms of handling, the best way of describing the two is similar but fundamentally different. Both handle superbly but whereas the MX-5 darts from corner to corner seeming almost like the wheels are digging into the ground, the S2 (standard suspension on my car) flows from corner to corner. Both provide an equally satisfying experience just different in method but similar in terms of feedback, aenjoyment, and feel.
Motorway work is an area where the S2 does beat the MX-5, although I only really notice this on a traffic free relaxing journey. Of course it's nice to have the torque from the 3.0 too. I don't find the MX-5 tiring at all though, and an advantage of it being relatively low geared (as is the S2 to a lesser extent) is that it always sits in its power band at reasonable motorway speeds.
The above provides an overview, but if you have any more specific questions please feel free to ask.
Matt.
Each car is equally good, just in such different ways. Each is excellent.
The biggest difference in my opinion, is the feeling of weight. The MX-5 just feels unbelievably light and nimble compared to the S2. The steering, the clutch, the brakes, even the minor controls.
Speed wise, yes the S2 is faster but sometimes the MX-5 doesn't 'feel' that far behind. It's all about perceived speed, to 'feel' like I'm going as fast in the S2 as I am in the MX-5 gets me into very illegal territory.
In terms of handling, the best way of describing the two is similar but fundamentally different. Both handle superbly but whereas the MX-5 darts from corner to corner seeming almost like the wheels are digging into the ground, the S2 (standard suspension on my car) flows from corner to corner. Both provide an equally satisfying experience just different in method but similar in terms of feedback, aenjoyment, and feel.
Motorway work is an area where the S2 does beat the MX-5, although I only really notice this on a traffic free relaxing journey. Of course it's nice to have the torque from the 3.0 too. I don't find the MX-5 tiring at all though, and an advantage of it being relatively low geared (as is the S2 to a lesser extent) is that it always sits in its power band at reasonable motorway speeds.
The above provides an overview, but if you have any more specific questions please feel free to ask.
Matt.
roverspeed said:
Both stage ones
my ears/ eyes are bleeding THERE IS NO STAGE 1, 2, 3 etc. Tuning is not structured by some global body that dictates that X = stage 1, y = stage 2.You can turbo or super charge either car 1.6 or 1.8 but to do it properly costs ££££
1.8 will feel stiffer, better braked and more torquey as standard.
Going from a 944 to an MX5/ Eunos is a big change, you'll either love it or hate it.
Herman Toothrot said:
roverspeed said:
Both stage ones
my ears/ eyes are bleeding THERE IS NO STAGE 1, 2, 3 etc. Tuning is not structured by some global body that dictates that X = stage 1, y = stage 2.
thanks for the back up Lazza,
I know there is no stage 1/2/3 etc
stage 1 refering to basic kits, with no additional/no major additional fuelling changes and no charge or intercoolers will see that sort of power. (all of the shelf kits)
After that you are talking FMIC, stand alone fuel management, even to the extremes of different internals for strengthing and lowering the compression ration.
I know there is no stage 1/2/3 etc
stage 1 refering to basic kits, with no additional/no major additional fuelling changes and no charge or intercoolers will see that sort of power. (all of the shelf kits)
After that you are talking FMIC, stand alone fuel management, even to the extremes of different internals for strengthing and lowering the compression ration.
roverspeed said:
I know there is no stage 1/2/3 etc
.
Why say with Stage 1 mods then..
Sorry, its a pet hate of mine it means nothing.
Stage 1 for one persons an induction kit. For another ifs a full turbo kit with standalone ECU etc. Stage 2 being a built bottom end and 350bhp.
If you mean an induction kit, say induction kit, if you mean a botched supercharger / turbo without management say it. etc
p.s. a basic turbo aka Greddy on a 1.6 will only see you with 160bhp
Edited by Herman Toothrot on Wednesday 3rd September 14:18
I have both a Mk1 Eunos R-LTD and a modded 944 turbo. Both are great to drive in different ways but you can have more fun at more or less legal speeds in the R-LTD. It feels more delicate and predictable to me. I'm trying it on track for the first time at Bedford tomorrow. My 944 turbo gets through tires and brakes too quickly on track for my wallet.
Steve
Steve
stever951 said:
I have both a Mk1 Eunos R-LTD and a modded 944 turbo. Both are great to drive in different ways but you can have more fun at more or less legal speeds in the R-LTD. It feels more delicate and predictable to me. I'm trying it on track for the first time at Bedford tomorrow. My 944 turbo gets through tires and brakes too quickly on track for my wallet.
Steve
I have an R-Ltd as well. I have loved the car but its time to move on. It'll be for sale very shortly as I'm going to buy a Porsche... whether that's a 968 or a 993 I haven't quite decided yet!Steve
hornetrider said:
I have an R-Ltd as well. I have loved the car but its time to move on. It'll be for sale very shortly as I'm going to buy a Porsche... whether that's a 968 or a 993 I haven't quite decided yet!
Both Good Choices I mentioned a 968 to the Mrs to replace the MR2 with but she wasn't keen, thought it looked very dated. Which it does, but its still a very nice car
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff