Now I totally 'get it'

Author
Discussion

Lawsome

Original Poster:

613 posts

189 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
Went in to test drive an s2000 at the weekend. After a quick blast we came back to the showroom, which a Mazda dealer was part of. Asked if there were any MX5s available around the same budget. Long story short a few hours later I traced the same route as the s2000 in a black 2 litre 56 plate MX5.

Totally smitten! It felt fantastic. I totally get the whole MX5 thing now. Didn't have the raw pace of the Honda but was a delight in the corners. Felt much tighter. Been having a ball all day yesterday and today!

Was only a grand dearer than the s2000 as well, with only 16k on the clock (Honda had 54k) and was four years newer. Cheaper in every way regarding running costs also. Brilliant! Consider me converted!

Disco You

3,692 posts

186 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
I'm very surprised that a mk3 (which I assume is on the original suspension and geo setup) handled than an S2000.

If you liked the mk3, you should try one with a proper geo setup or a mk 1/2, they are better than the mk3.

MX-5 Lazza

7,952 posts

225 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
I'm not. S2k isn't famed for it's steering whereas the MX5 is - even on stock springs the Mk3 drives well. It can of course be greatly improved with the Eibach springs but it's not bad as stock.

hornetrider

63,161 posts

211 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
Disco You said:
If you liked the mk3, you should try one with a proper geo setup or a mk 1/2, they are better than the mk3.
Describe 'better' old bean, subjectively. Can I ask how many miles you've put in behind the wheels of the different variants?

Disco You

3,692 posts

186 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
hornetrider said:
Describe 'better' old bean, subjectively. Can I ask how many miles you've put in behind the wheels of the different variants?
I have only ever driven a mk 2.5 but I have seen mentioned many times that mk1 and mk2s both handle significantly better than the mk3, at least in part because of the geometry set-up of the mk3 "out of the box".

hornetrider

63,161 posts

211 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
They all needed a geo out of the box, the Mk3 in the UK also being higher than the JDM equivalent due to Euro pedestrian safety regs. Eibach springs bring the Mk3 sports back into spec.

However once done it's a brave and eloquent man who could definitively state which car handles the 'best' and why.

JonnyFive

29,508 posts

195 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
All of them are champion, theres a reason they're the best selling sports car biggrin

Pints

18,445 posts

200 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
JonnyFive said:
All of them are champion, theres a reason they're the best selling sports car biggrin
This.

Don't let's get into another argument over which variant is better than another. Let's just rejoice that another has seen the light.

biggrin

Strangely Brown

10,915 posts

237 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
hornetrider said:
the Mk3 in the UK also being higher than the JDM equivalent due to Euro pedestrian safety regs.
Can you or anyone please show me where this information can be found? There are many people repeating this as fact but nobody has ever yet substantiated it.

hornetrider

63,161 posts

211 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
Think I read it in Evo or another magazine chap, on my iPhone do googling is a pita. It is a fact they are higher in Europe than Japan and Eibachs get them back to how Mazda intended.

Aizletree

12,429 posts

181 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
Pints said:
JonnyFive said:
All of them are champion, theres a reason they're the best selling sports car biggrin
This.

Don't let's get into another argument over which variant is better than another. Let's just rejoice that another has seen the light.

biggrin
I'm now in such a position to add to the fanfare. Welcome to the clan!

ATTAK Z

12,516 posts

195 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
Here's a good one ... The Z forum lads love it ... NOT

Click me!

Strangely Brown

10,915 posts

237 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
hornetrider said:
Think I read it in Evo or another magazine chap, on my iPhone do googling is a pita. It is a fact they are higher in Europe than Japan and Eibachs get them back to how Mazda intended.
You say that it's a fact, but do you have anything to substantiate it? Can you point me to the JDM figures for overall height or clearance on a standard car? Do you have a link to the JDM NC brochure? Some chap in a magazine saying it is not enough.

Strangely Brown

10,915 posts

237 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
Strangely Brown said:
hornetrider said:
Think I read it in Evo or another magazine chap, on my iPhone do googling is a pita. It is a fact they are higher in Europe than Japan and Eibachs get them back to how Mazda intended.
You say that it's a fact, but do you have anything to substantiate it? Can you point me to the JDM figures for overall height or clearance on a standard car? Do you have a link to the JDM NC brochure? Some chap in a magazine saying it is not enough.
It's OK, I've found one.

http://jccc.web.fc2.com/japanese/mazda/roadstar-nc...

You might like to check the dimensions against those listed in the US and UK brochures.

The UK cars are NOT higher than those in Japan or the USA; they are the same height. There is no evidence for the "EU Pedestrian Impact Regs" accepted wisdom and plenty to the contrary.

If anyone can show otherwise, I will eat my words.

Olivera

7,585 posts

245 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
Strangely Brown said:
It's OK, I've found one.

http://jccc.web.fc2.com/japanese/mazda/roadstar-nc...

You might like to check the dimensions against those listed in the US and UK brochures.

The UK cars are NOT higher than those in Japan or the USA; they are the same height. There is no evidence for the "EU Pedestrian Impact Regs" accepted wisdom and plenty to the contrary.

If anyone can show otherwise, I will eat my words.
Regardless if the UK ride height is standard or not, it's widely acknowledged that it sits far too high out of the box, which badly affects the geometry and overall handling of the car. Many reviews, both from the press and from owners, state it only handles well once it's been dropped at least 30mm and had the geometry properly set.

Gizmo!

18,150 posts

215 months

Tuesday 26th April 2011
quotequote all
Olivera said:
Strangely Brown said:
It's OK, I've found one.

http://jccc.web.fc2.com/japanese/mazda/roadstar-nc...

You might like to check the dimensions against those listed in the US and UK brochures.

The UK cars are NOT higher than those in Japan or the USA; they are the same height. There is no evidence for the "EU Pedestrian Impact Regs" accepted wisdom and plenty to the contrary.

If anyone can show otherwise, I will eat my words.
Regardless if the UK ride height is standard or not, it's widely acknowledged that it sits far too high out of the box, which badly affects the geometry and overall handling of the car. Many reviews, both from the press and from owners, state it only handles well once it's been dropped at least 30mm and had the geometry properly set.
I'm not sure if it's a simple misunderstanding, but the last couple of years (96-98) of the Mk1 definitely DO ride higher than earlier examples due to pedestrian safety regs than came into force in 1996.

Lawsome

Original Poster:

613 posts

189 months

Wednesday 27th April 2011
quotequote all
To be fair I never said it was 'better' at cornering than the s2000. It was probably badly worded but I felt it was more fun. As for the 'felt tighter', I just meant all of the controls (the age and mileage of the MX5 likely helped). I enjoy quick driving but the s2000 felt too raw and a lot of effort for what I was looking for every day. The MX5 seemed to click right away and was great fun from the moment I sat in it.

I understand the earlier models may be better (again, I never said they weren't) but the MK3 in standard form was still great fun to drive. I've never driven the older cars for comparison.

At least now I know what my first mod should be biggrin Cheers

Baryonyx

18,062 posts

165 months

Wednesday 27th April 2011
quotequote all
Disco You said:
I'm very surprised that a mk3 (which I assume is on the original suspension and geo setup) handled than an S2000.

If you liked the mk3, you should try one with a proper geo setup or a mk 1/2, they are better than the mk3.
Yes, I have to agree that the Mk3 suffers in terms of drive quality, I'm not sure if the oversized wheels contribute to this. In any event, I always found the mk1 and mk2 models to be a far better drive, but it's horses for courses. They win out easily in every other area though.

That said, I've always loved S2000's but you do have to work them very hard to make them go.

maser_spyder

6,356 posts

188 months

Wednesday 27th April 2011
quotequote all
Lawsome said:
To be fair I never said it was 'better' at cornering than the s2000. It was probably badly worded but I felt it was more fun. As for the 'felt tighter', I just meant all of the controls (the age and mileage of the MX5 likely helped). I enjoy quick driving but the s2000 felt too raw and a lot of effort for what I was looking for every day. The MX5 seemed to click right away and was great fun from the moment I sat in it.

I understand the earlier models may be better (again, I never said they weren't) but the MK3 in standard form was still great fun to drive. I've never driven the older cars for comparison.

At least now I know what my first mod should be biggrin Cheers
I understood what you meant! I'm lucky to have the opportunity to drive a couple of convertibles, and for blasting around having fun, the mx5 is always my first choice.

Decent suspension in any car will transform it, but even more so on a 5. Properly set up, they are immense fun.

My old mk1 on knackered suspension was comical (now has coilovers and lowered a little) but still a lot of fun, but our mk2.5 sport is just superb out of the box. I'm sure it would be even better for a full tracking job too.

Strangely Brown

10,915 posts

237 months

Wednesday 27th April 2011
quotequote all
Olivera said:
Regardless if the UK ride height is standard or not, it's widely acknowledged that it sits far too high out of the box
No, it's sits at the height that Mazda say it should out of the box and it does so in the UK, US and Japan. I suspect you'll find that it does so in all other markets too.

Olivera said:
which badly affects the geometry and overall handling of the car
Who says that it badly affects the geometry? Who says that it badly affects the handling? You appear to be over-egging the pudding somewhat.

Olivera said:
Many reviews, both from the press and from owners, state it only handles well once it's been dropped at least 30mm and had the geometry properly set.
Do they? Really? I'm sure that many owners and forum posters who are following the accepted wisdom will repeat what they are told but have reputable motoring journalists really said that the car doesn't handle well until it has been dropped? How many of these people have driven the car back to back in both standard and lowered states? Have you?

ETA: Can anyone give any plausible reason whatsoever why Mazda would design a car and then compromise it by raising it "at least 30mm" so that it is "too high out of the box" and then selling it that way in [at least] their three biggest markets (JDM, UK, US)?

Beuller? ... Beuller? ... Anyone?

It makes no sense.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Wednesday 27th April 08:17